Anyone remember that article / review from the Vertigo tour...

[redhill]

where U2 / Bono was bashed?

Was it the New York Times?

I thought Bono responded publicly?

Anyone remember these? I am looking for both the original article and Bono's response!

Thanks!

 

[cobl04]

it was probably mcculloch

 

[U2girl]

You mean the Greg Kot (I think that's his name) article ?

 

[jonnytakeawalk]

Transcript of Bono interview -- chicagotribune.com

 

[redhill]

Thanks guys!

Yes! This was it.

For anyone interested, here is a link to all of Kot's U2 writings:

Search -- chicagotribune.com

 

[Earnie Shavers]

The old reviews are great – but am I missing it, or is there no NLOTH review? Would be interesting, considering his distaste for HTDAAB.

 

[jonnytakeawalk]

The old reviews are great – but am I missing it, or is there no NLOTH review? Would be interesting, considering his distaste for HTDAAB.

U2's 'No Line on the Horizon': First impressions | Turn It Up - A guided tour through the worlds of pop, rock and rap

It's quite positive.

The interview he had with Bono was really interesting. It's obvious this guy isn't a downright U2 hater but was just upset with the way they were going during HTDAAB and the Vertigo Tour. He spoke for a lot of fans I reckon when he essentially said he was dissapointed with the bands unwillingness to experiment during that period.

Kot: You're killing me now. I thought those '90s albums were great. I didn't understand "Achtung Baby" right away. But after seeing the tour, I realized it was your best album. I still feel that way. And I loved "Zooropa" in that way, and "Passengers." I even liked "Pop." To me, you guys were showing us how it should be done. You were [screwing] with our heads and making great music. You were doing those weird ballads from "Pop" as an encore at Soldier Field [in 1997]. I loved that you were so far out on a limb with saw in hand, and you were trying things, pushing things. And now you never play songs from those albums anymore. What happened?

 

[U2girl]

Nice of him not to bring any preconceived ideas into that interview.

 

[monsieur fly]

"It sounds like "Pop" didn't work for you because it didn't sell. To my mind, it worked because it was a good, daring album. There's no shame in not selling."

Ouch! And so true. As usual Bono felt the need to apologise for the album and wheeled out the lame excuse "it just needed another month." Thank God they didn't have another month, I say, because we all know what happens when U2 are given more time- they take daring songs and ruin them. The band's whole attitude towards their 90s material in the Vertigo/ipod era seriously brassed me off.

 

[U2girl]

Yes, that is exactly why they aren't 100 % ok with Pop. It didn't sell enough.

 

[monsieur fly]

Yes, that is exactly why they aren't 100 % ok with Pop. It didn't sell enough.

Sales do not neccessarily decide an album's quality- Kot had a point.

 

[U2girl]

Sales aren't the reason why they weren't totally satisfied with Pop. Kot is wrong.

 

[financeguy]

Nice of him not to bring any preconceived ideas into that interview.

Wow, an interviewer with opinions that is fond of the band's 1990's music, shoot the bastard.

 

[U2girl]

Heavy bias and pre-conceived notions about a band is okay for a professional critic ?

O-kay.

 

[bram]

Heavy bias and pre-conceived notions about a band is okay for a professional critic ?

O-kay.

How could he possibly have had notions that weren't preconceived? Was he supposed to avoid all of U2's music for their first 25 years so that he could write a fair review?

 

[Ellay]

I think his review of NLOTH is pretty much spot on.

It would be crazy if he did ignore the bands history.

 

[U2girl]

Review a tour or an album on its own.
It is irrelevant whether he liked the 80's or the 90's U2 is if he's writing about the current era U2 - Bomb, NLOTH or Vertigo tour. Yet that obvious and blatant bias and his own pre-constructed ideas about U2 are affecting all three reviews, not to mention the Bono interview.

 

[bram]

"It is irrelevant whether he liked the 80's or the 90's U2 is if he's writing about the current era U2..."

Do you really believe that? Pretending to not know about or care about their previous material would be more affected and problematic.

 

[monsieur fly]

Review a tour or an album on its own.
It is irrelevant whether he liked the 80's or the 90's U2 is if he's writing about the current era U2 - Bomb, NLOTH or Vertigo tour. Yet that obvious and blatant bias and his own pre-constructed ideas about U2 are affecting all three reviews, not to mention the Bono interview.

I cannot accept this argument. Firstly, it both impossible and inappropriate to review an album in isolation. I am a History student and the thought affronts me! Previous records count as important critical and analytical yardsticks; furthermore, records are often defined, be it positively negatively, by previous ones. For instance, Achtung Baby makes more sense if we understand it as a reaction to the Joshue Tree and Rattle and Hum. This leads me to my next point. The band themselves discuss their current work in light of older efforts. If U2 behave like that then it is not irrelevant for reviewers to behave similarly. Let us remember how prominently they linked HTDAAB with Boy. They were bringing a pre-constructed idea- "early U2 is good"- to the table. Kot had a duty to counter that, which he did- good journalism I say. Thirdly, each and every one of us- fans, reviewers, historians etc bring our preferences to bear on these matters. So the earnest, flag-waving U2 fan saw HTDAAB as the right move, more cynical fellows like me thought it was a huge creative mis-step. That is not to advocate complete subjectivity- every judgment should have sound supporting reasons and Kot gives them. Rather it is to stress that Kot won't be alone: the journalists who praised it were no less biased.

My final point is more specific. Cast your mind back to 2004/5. Ticket fiasco aside, U2 were getting a very good press; the album was selling very well, and they'd had two number 1 hits here in the UK. Like a good, enquiring journalist Kot was prepared to speak with an independent mind (raising genuine concerns felt by me and other "pro-90s" fans) and for that he should be admired, not criticised.

 

[U2DMfan]

The context of that interview was the criticisms of the Vertigo tour.
Which happened to include songs from the 80's as well.
They do play old songs in concert, U2Girl.

So how does one review a concert tour, make criticisms and then respond to defenses of those criticisms without even talking about anything other than the new music?

To talk about anything else, is "bias"?
Haha, yeah, we know what this is.
A certain "bias" entirely on it's own.

 

[U2girl]

Bram: Do you need to know what a critic thinks of the band's previous work when he evaluates the current era ?

Mr Fly: Firstly, using context and historic circumstances (Achtung Baby is a fine album even if you don't know the Rattle and hum backlash background...) is one thing. Taking a musical work and look at it entirely through the prism of your built-in opinions and biases is another. The fans, of course, do it, I feel professional critics shouldn't.

Secondly, U2 did make the link between Boy and HTDAAB in terms of the theme of innocence. The lyrical themes reminded Bono of their first album. I don't see that as U2 automatically claiming "early U2 is good". Personally, I think Bomb is a natural progression from ATYCLB and where the band was at the time. I don't think those records were calculated "let's get some cash and crawl back to the fans because Pop didn't sell" albums as some fans do, and it seems like Kot is one of the critics that does, too. It's just that he assumes quite a bit on the part of the band's motives and doesn't seem interested at all in Bono's counter arguments.

Thirdly, are you saying Kot is automatically right because most of the critics were giving good press to U2 and he wasn't ?

U2DMfan: the context of that interview is pretty much the whole of current era. The last two albums, Vertigo tour ticket fiasco, the Ipod commercial, Superbowl etc.
I'm talking about Kot's assumption or two and constant sneaking in (more or less) subtle praising of the 90's era and him saying "I dislike what you did in the last 8 years because it's not the kind of music/attitude I liked about you". That's not good enough for a pro critic IMO.

 

[monsieur fly]

U2 girl,

Firstly, you are entitled to that view. On balance, I would rather have a reviewer who has strong passions and convictions but who can also give supporting reasons. Kot does that. Secondly, I definitely see it as U2 automatically claiming their earlier work was better because it was done in conjunction with the disowning of Zooropa and Pop. Also listen to Bono on the Chicago DVD before Miracle Drug. The songs the band will take with them are all 80s warhorses. Thirdly, no I am not saying Kot was automatically "right" (though personally I agree with him). What I am saying is that he showed intellectual courage to challenge the status quo and to articulate the concerns of a certain type of U2 fan. And I think those concerns are valid. ATYCLB and HTDAAB took very few risks- no Arabic cellos, boom chas or Fat Lady falsettos at all and to some of us, that smacked of a calculated ploy.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

Wow, an interviewer with opinions that is fond of the band's 1990's music, shoot the bastard.

 

[jimyjazz]

It's a great interview. He was respectful and obviously enjoys the band, he just didn't like where they were at in 04. It's nice to see an interviewer no lick Bono's balls like they usually do. Cool that he pointed out that the only reason U2 thought Pop to be a failure was because it didn't sell.

Gref Kot is alright. Jim DeRogatis, on the other hand, is a prolapsed mule rectum.

 

[Gilead12]

"I'm only one member of the band. The Edge is three."

 

[U2girl]

U2 girl,

Firstly, you are entitled to that view. On balance, I would rather have a reviewer who has strong passions and convictions but who can also give supporting reasons. Kot does that. Secondly, I definitely see it as U2 automatically claiming their earlier work was better because it was done in conjunction with the disowning of Zooropa and Pop. Also listen to Bono on the Chicago DVD before Miracle Drug. The songs the band will take with them are all 80s warhorses. Thirdly, no I am not saying Kot was automatically "right" (though personally I agree with him). What I am saying is that he showed intellectual courage to challenge the status quo and to articulate the concerns of a certain type of U2 fan. And I think those concerns are valid. ATYCLB and HTDAAB took very few risks- no Arabic cellos, boom chas or Fat Lady falsettos at all and to some of us, that smacked of a calculated ploy.

Nothing wrong with convictions, as long as the reasons are valid. I've yet to see any reviewer put forth such a reason for the allegedly "sell out" U2 of the 00s. Seems like the only argument is "because the last two albums sold and Pop didn't" or "I used to like you in the 90's but you're not the same band anymore". ("you promoted yourself" doesn't really mean much because they always did that) What would the party line be if there had been no BD or Vertigo and the last two albums would sell in the vicinity of Pop's sales ?

Disowning ? I'm sure the band would have played more of Pop had it not been for the Boy and AB lovin' on the last tour (that said I don't know the setlists for this tour ). Pop songs got played on the last two tours, and they brought out stuff like Stay, First time and Miss Sarajevo live. Many people would say the 80's U2 was the best. Anyway, I don't really see the disowning unless you mean the Best of mixes which certainly got a mixed reaction. I didn't feel offended as they always said they'd like more time on Pop.
Taking the songs in the future - U2 built their career on those songs, why should they not be played live - along with the new songs and bringing out the oldies ? Speaking of Bono, I also remember his "we feel like a new band" line in this era. Whether you liked ATYCLB or Bomb, making a pop and a retro album was new to U2. As far as I'm concerned, every album they make after 40 is a risk, considering the environment.

I find it curious that for someone that burned Bomb to the ground, Kot seems to appreciate NLOTH more. And that album also has many U2 sounds picked up from their past. It's not really the innovative album and the reinvention they - or I should say Daniel Lanois - were hyping.

Lastly, I think the main question rather than "is it new or is it a retreat ?" should be "is it good ?". And thus far, the critical consensus for the last three albums is a "yes". There hasn't been a backlash the likes of Rattle and Hum and Pop/mart in this decade.

 

[monsieur fly]

Disowning ? I'm sure the band would have played more of Pop had it not been for the Boy and AB lovin' on the last tour (that said I don't know the setlists for this tour ). Pop songs got played on the last two tours, and they brought out stuff like Stay, First time and Miss Sarajevo live. Many people would say the 80's U2 was the best. Anyway, I don't really see the disowning unless you mean the Best of mixes which certainly got a mixed reaction. I didn't feel offended as they always said they'd like more time on Pop.


I find it curious that for someone that burned Bomb to the ground, Kot seems to appreciate NLOTH more. And that album also has many U2 sounds picked up from their past. It's not really the innovative album and the reinvention they - or I should say Daniel Lanois - were hyping.
quote]


Again I disagree with you but I appreciate you taking the time to answer my points. We should not delude ourselves about the band's coverage of Pop on the last two tours. An acoustic "Please" every once in a while? An acoustic SATS? The occasional Discotheque? Gone might have featured heavily on Elevation but it didn't get a single outing on Vertigo. I'm sorry but the scarcity of Pop material and the "safe" fashion in which much of it was played suggests that it has been disowned. Neither Mofo, nor Miami- the album's most adventurous songs got an outing. The same is yet more true of Zooropa. We might have got Stay and a few renditions of "The First Time" but what about the brassier, more adventurous- Zooropa, Dirty Day and Lemon? Not a single outing, lest it offend the casual fans, no doubt. The band has disowned its 90s work at every opportunity- in interviews; on stage and on ATYCLB and HTDAAB.

I find it less curious that Kot likes NLOTH. I like it too and I suspect our views are similar. Get On Your Boots is exactly the song ,that fans of Pop thought they would never make again, Magnificent is a rock/dance crossover Fez/Being Born and UC are both quite adventurous and the title track could have been on AB. Cedars of Lebanon (which Kot actually doesn't like) has all the nihilism and darkness of their 90s work. If it's rather more AB than Zooropa then fingers crossed for Songs of Ascent.

 

[U2girl]

Disowning ? I'm sure the band would have played more of Pop had it not been for the Boy and AB lovin' on the last tour (that said I don't know the setlists for this tour ). Pop songs got played on the last two tours, and they brought out stuff like Stay, First time and Miss Sarajevo live. Many people would say the 80's U2 was the best. Anyway, I don't really see the disowning unless you mean the Best of mixes which certainly got a mixed reaction. I didn't feel offended as they always said they'd like more time on Pop.


I find it curious that for someone that burned Bomb to the ground, Kot seems to appreciate NLOTH more. And that album also has many U2 sounds picked up from their past. It's not really the innovative album and the reinvention they - or I should say Daniel Lanois - were hyping.
quote]


Again I disagree with you but I appreciate you taking the time to answer my points. We should not delude ourselves about the band's coverage of Pop on the last two tours. An acoustic "Please" every once in a while? An acoustic SATS? The occasional Discotheque? Gone might have featured heavily on Elevation but it didn't get a single outing on Vertigo. I'm sorry but the scarcity of Pop material and the "safe" fashion in which much of it was played suggests that it has been disowned. Neither Mofo, nor Miami- the album's most adventurous songs got an outing. The same is yet more true of Zooropa. We might have got Stay and a few renditions of "The First Time" but what about the brassier, more adventurous- Zooropa, Dirty Day and Lemon? Not a single outing, lest it offend the casual fans, no doubt. The band has disowned its 90s work at every opportunity- in interviews; on stage and on ATYCLB and HTDAAB.

I find it less curious that Kot likes NLOTH. I like it too and I suspect our views are similar. Get On Your Boots is exactly the song ,that fans of Pop thought they would never make again, Magnificent is a rock/dance crossover Fez/Being Born and UC are both quite adventurous and the title track could have been on AB. Cedars of Lebanon (which Kot actually doesn't like) has all the nihilism and darkness of their 90s work. If it's rather more AB than Zooropa then fingers crossed for Songs of Ascent.

Thanks for your time in this talk too.

5 Pop songs were featured on the "Pop damage control" Elevation tour.
Miami and Mofo I don't think would work on the last two tours (Please would make more sense in the "human rights" section on the last tour), though I remember reading they did rehearse Mofo on Vertigo.
Well, where was the Zooropa material on Popmart ? I also think Bono would have trouble singing Zooropa songs because his falsetto is not what it used to be.
In interviews I remember Bono saying many times Pop has the potential for a masterpiece - if anyone in the band, he is proud of their 90's albums.
As for ATYCLB and Bomb, wasn't that the point, really ? To leave all the irony and experimenting, just like they left the preaching and pompousness with AB ? And like SOA may be leaving the accessible, "back to the roots", "writing the perfect single" U2 of the last three albums ?

See what I mean re: NLOTH ? References to their early work are filling up the album, and it's not getting called out on it like the previous album.

 

[Zoomerang96]

Review a tour or an album on its own.

oh come on. really?

you're telling me if the monica lisa was issued a few years after the mona lisa, it'd deserve the same praise?

everything deserves context. is there nothing u2 could have done that's worthy of a negative article from anyone, in your view?

u2's dismissal of their 90's material, particularly pop will always be a great irritation for many fans.

 

[asr]

It's a great interview. He was respectful and obviously enjoys the band, he just didn't like where they were at in 04. It's nice to see an interviewer no lick Bono's balls like they usually do. Cool that he pointed out that the only reason U2 thought Pop to be a failure was because it didn't sell.

Gref Kot is alright. Jim DeRogatis, on the other hand, is a prolapsed mule rectum.

Actually, Jim derogatis gave NLOTH an even more positive review. Surprising consideriing he was in the Henry Rollins mode in recent years:

U2, "No Line on the Horizon" (Universal) [3.5 STARS] - Jim DeRogatis