Bono interview with Irish Times
- Thread starter financeguy
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
last unicorn
Blue Crack Addict
Oh no, not again please. It's the same old stuff we've been hearing and reading for months now. 
I love you, Bono, but all the same talk over and over again is getting tired and boring.
Just go to the studio and do a new album without talking and thinking too much about it.
Thank you.
I love you, Bono, but all the same talk over and over again is getting tired and boring.
Just go to the studio and do a new album without talking and thinking too much about it.
Thank you.
gvox
Ghost of Love
DESPERATE NOT TO turn into a cigarette-lighter-in-the-air stadium-rock band
Popmartijn
Blue Crack Supplier
Oh no, not again please. It's the same old stuff we've been hearing and reading for months now.
Then again, this interview took place in Toronto, during the TIFF. So if it sounds like a re-hash of what he said last month, that's probably because he was repeating what he said a few hours/days earlier.
But that too.
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
This must be either from the FTSD presser or done around that time. Ironically, this is one of those times I believe every word Bono's saying & I believe it's completely sincere. This isn't "Bomb is our best album ever" talk, I think this is from the heart & real (in Bono's have an existential crisis in public kind of way).
I get it, I just don't know why he has to keep saying it. So, by all means, dream it all up again U2. Figure out how to play the small places again. Sort out how to get back that precious relevance. Think of a reason to make a great album again. Get on with it...we understood the first time.
Bono....how can we miss you if you won't go away?
I get it, I just don't know why he has to keep saying it. So, by all means, dream it all up again U2. Figure out how to play the small places again. Sort out how to get back that precious relevance. Think of a reason to make a great album again. Get on with it...we understood the first time.
Bono....how can we miss you if you won't go away?
lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
Agreed, Nick. But they can't take too long. Considering how many big bands released albums this year, it would be foolish for U2 not to fill in the vacuum that will be 2012.
If they can't pull the trigger soon no one's going to give a shit anymore when they do finally put out something. Which is in essence what Bono's saying anyway.
If they can't pull the trigger soon no one's going to give a shit anymore when they do finally put out something. Which is in essence what Bono's saying anyway.
djerdap
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2004
- Messages
- 7,605
No pop songs on Horizon, according to Bono, eh?
I guess his copy doesn't have track no.5...
I guess his copy doesn't have track no.5...
lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
Yeah that was odd.
But considering they ignored the album version on tour, not totally surprising.
But considering they ignored the album version on tour, not totally surprising.
Maybe Bono should stop doing U2 -related interviews until they DO have a new album to promote. His comments are getting more and more bizarre. "No pop songs" on NLOTH?? And did Paul McG tell him that from now on they can mutiply their actual album sales by a factor of 2.5 in this magical mysterious download era? Really strange.
hand0lotion
War Child
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2010
- Messages
- 777
Bono just knows things are getting boring here on Interference, so he's giving us fodder for a 15 page thread. Thanks, B 
Sure beats another Elevation vs. Elevation vs Elevation type thread
Sure beats another Elevation vs. Elevation vs Elevation type thread
cobl04
45:33
There will be no U2 album in 2012.
popacrobat
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
Connecticut rules.
lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
Perhaps that number isn't correct, but there certainly has to be some kind of adjustment factored in.
hand0lotion
War Child
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2010
- Messages
- 777
Yes it does. So does irrelevance
This bit of info I found on atu2 is absolutely worthless, but since a band member said it...
:It sounds like Edge has been talking about U2's future plans with Brian Hiatt of Rolling Stone, and Edge seems to be saying there's a 50/50 chance of a new U2 album (or new U2 songs in some form) in 2012. Hiatt tweeted this Edge quote a couple hours ago:
U2 2012? "It's quite likely you might hear from us next year," Edge tells me in next @Rollingstone. "But it's equally possible you won't."
Adam has previously told Rolling Stone that U2 was targeting late 2012 for its next album. Bono told Hot Press that it would "be probably next fall."
Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I like where his head is at.
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I don't know, I'd love it, but I'm not counting on something so soon. It was 3 years between Pop and ATYCLB, then 4 years until Bomb, then 5 years until NLOTH (unless I'm mistaken). 2012 will "only" be 3 years since their last album...I'm not saying they can't, or don't need do to this, but it definitely would mean drastically changing their current work habits.
The thing is, U2 isn't Lady Gaga or some other version of a current mega pop star. In a way I don't think they're competing on the same field. U2 really can't compete w/those kind of stars these days, and it's unrealistic for Bono to expect them to. Bono has said before he considers relevance when a song changes the mood of the times it's in...a song that "defines a summer" to use his words. I'm not sure U2 can do that again and can be that much in the front of the public's conciouness anymore, at least with new music. Let's face it, without 360 and Spiderman, U2 would have fallen off the general publics radar a month after NLOTH came out.
And it's essential for contemporary mega stars to stay in the limelight constantly in a way that it's not necessary, or helpful I believe, for U2 to do so. U2 has been EVERYWHERE the past three years, and I think maybe the public has reached a saturation point with them. And they don't need to worry about getting attention when they do come back....U2 has a sort of iconic status that any new release is going to be treated as an "event" whether it's in 2012 or 2013 or beyond. Whether it's good or not and can sell beyond that is another story of course.
But even conceding that being "out of the limelight" is one path to irrelevance for U2, an even more direct path is to quickly release an album that no one really likes or buys...I think Bono conceded as much when he said something along the lines of "We don't want the next thing the public hears from U2 to be an art record." As a fan, of course I'd love to get a new U2 album every year, but they have a different set of priorities than we do.
And remember, we're not talking about a four young guys still at a relatively early stage of their career dreaming it all up again. Reinventing yourself at 30 is one thing, doing it at 50 with three decades of music behind you towards the latter part of our career is quite another.
lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
Right. But they've been the exception to the rule for a long time, with many things.
So if anyone can accomplish what they're trying to, relevancy and rejuvenation this late in the game, it would be them.
Even from an image perspective, they look pretty damned young and "cool" for guys in their early 50's. For comparison's sake, let's look at the Stones in 1994 when Jagger was 51:
Already look like death warmed over at that point.
And now U2 from last year (excuse the odd pink lipstick effect):
So if anyone can accomplish what they're trying to, relevancy and rejuvenation this late in the game, it would be them.
Even from an image perspective, they look pretty damned young and "cool" for guys in their early 50's. For comparison's sake, let's look at the Stones in 1994 when Jagger was 51:
Already look like death warmed over at that point.
And now U2 from last year (excuse the odd pink lipstick effect):
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Oh, I agree, if anyone can pull it off, it's U2. I don't count them out at all. I'm just saying I don't expect something quite so soon from them. Don't get me wrong, I'd love it....I'm just not counting on it. The thing is, U2 doesn't do "raw, unpolished" that well, as anyone who's listened to the Hansa tapes knows. There's some interesting stuff on there, but nothing you'd release commercially as a stand alone album (as I believe the "Baby" versions will demonstrate). It takes this band a while, especially recently, to get where they want to be musically. And they're not young men anymore, they have other things in their lives, and they just came off essentially almost 3 years on the road. And at the moment it appears they're no where near ready to get back in the studio, based on Bono's existential angst. I just think even late 2012 is optimistic. But who knows.
And you're right, they do look great. Then again, I don't think they've lived quite as fast or hard as the Stones.
And let's face it, the U2 pic looks like they've done a bit of airbrush on our boys.
cobl04
45:33
Right. But they've been the exception to the rule for a long time, with many things.
So if anyone can accomplish what they're trying to, relevancy and rejuvenation this late in the game, it would be them.
Even from an image perspective, they look pretty damned young and "cool" for guys in their early 50's. For comparison's sake, let's look at the Stones in 1994 when Jagger was 51:
Already look like death warmed over at that point.
And now U2 from last year (excuse the odd pink lipstick effect):
That doesn't prove much... they look like that cos of drugs
Galeongirl
Galeonbroad
DESPERATE NOT TO turn into a cigarette-lighter-in-the-air stadium-rock band
So I reckon Bono doesn't want to be Bon Jovi?
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Galeongirl
Galeonbroad
It's waaay more high tech right? So they're not stuck in the past.
So they're not stuck in the past.It's interesting to me that he says it's harder on them now then in '90. It's mostly interesting because I just wonder if he really believes that. I guess I'm just so used to U2 giving us the run-around that I immediately translate that into "well, nothing's really working yet; we still have to shuffle through a couple more producers before we can settle back down and rush to a 2013 deadline." The possibility of there being real tension in U2, real stress about the music and the 'spiritual direction' (to use Adam's term from FTSD) that's going to make sense of the music, just doesn't ring true for me. I think of them as worrying about singles and 'relevance' rather than musical and spiritual identity. But I think that might be unfair.
For some reason I think of '90 as a time of real turmoil and '11 as a time of manufactured Bono-speak turmoil . But I'm not sure why one should be any more real than the other. They were already superstars in '90. And they've always worried about single/relevance, because their goal has always been not just to make great music but to bring great music to the masses. They believe people will, if struck the right way, listen to good music. I can't blame them for that.
I guess I just hope there really is something to Bono's suggesting that the situation now is akin to the situation in '90. Because I think a really determined U2 - a musically and, perhaps more important, spiritually hungry U2 - is more than capable of pulling off one last(?) reinvention, and "puncturing" pop music one more time. And I'd love to be there to listen.
For some reason I think of '90 as a time of real turmoil and '11 as a time of manufactured Bono-speak turmoil . But I'm not sure why one should be any more real than the other. They were already superstars in '90. And they've always worried about single/relevance, because their goal has always been not just to make great music but to bring great music to the masses. They believe people will, if struck the right way, listen to good music. I can't blame them for that.
I guess I just hope there really is something to Bono's suggesting that the situation now is akin to the situation in '90. Because I think a really determined U2 - a musically and, perhaps more important, spiritually hungry U2 - is more than capable of pulling off one last(?) reinvention, and "puncturing" pop music one more time. And I'd love to be there to listen.
The comparison with '90 is correct.
U2 has to adapt to the effects of age and changes in the industry in the last decade...BD and ATYCLB worked because they rode the wave of rise of pop. Vertigo managed to rise thanks to the surge of "the" rock bands in 2002/03.
The last few years have seen the rise of Gaga and Bieber and Adele, not bands. (certainly none with stadium aspirations...U2 just might be "the last of the rock stars" when it comes to big rock bands)
So how does U2 fit in ? NLOTH would appear to indicate they don't (Eno and Lanois managed to help propel them forward with UF, JT, AB and ATYCLB -whatever you may think that one. No such thing happened with NLOTH). Not the 11 singles chasing, *pop/vintage U2 version of this decade. They are likely realising the times of hit singles are over. So in that sense, yes, NLOTH does not have a pop song. So unlike the post Pop U2 when they naturally finished the experimental road of the 90's, it's more like post Rattle and Hum U2 when they were sick of the bloated, earnest version of U2 in the 80's. Now that the 00's version of U2 isn't cutting it anymore, it's time to find another reinvention. And for once it might be good to look it up without Eno/Lanois.
U2 has to adapt to the effects of age and changes in the industry in the last decade...BD and ATYCLB worked because they rode the wave of rise of pop. Vertigo managed to rise thanks to the surge of "the" rock bands in 2002/03.
The last few years have seen the rise of Gaga and Bieber and Adele, not bands. (certainly none with stadium aspirations...U2 just might be "the last of the rock stars" when it comes to big rock bands)
So how does U2 fit in ? NLOTH would appear to indicate they don't (Eno and Lanois managed to help propel them forward with UF, JT, AB and ATYCLB -whatever you may think that one. No such thing happened with NLOTH). Not the 11 singles chasing, *pop/vintage U2 version of this decade. They are likely realising the times of hit singles are over. So in that sense, yes, NLOTH does not have a pop song. So unlike the post Pop U2 when they naturally finished the experimental road of the 90's, it's more like post Rattle and Hum U2 when they were sick of the bloated, earnest version of U2 in the 80's. Now that the 00's version of U2 isn't cutting it anymore, it's time to find another reinvention. And for once it might be good to look it up without Eno/Lanois.
gvox
Ghost of Love
Already look like death warmed over at that point.
dude (Ron Wood?) on the far left looks like a fuckin mortician.
lazarus
Blue Crack Supplier
Very well-said, but where No Line went wrong isn't the fault of Eno & Lanois. The previous collaborations with those producers did not result in compromised releases. TUF, JT, and AB were self-enclosed artistic endeavors. And as you said, whatever one may think of ATYCLB, it achieved what it set out to do, because the band stuck to the plan of crafting solid pop songs.
By writing and recording in Morocco, with both producers, the band was doing something fresh, if not wholly new. If they hadn't gotten cold feet before the end, and putting things like Crazy Tonight, Stand-Up Comedy on there, failing to complete Winter, and toning down some of the more exotic elements on something like Magnificent, we might have wound up with an album that, marketed correctly (and with better reviews, I'm sure) could have crossed cultural lines and shown a U2 to the public that wasn't retreading over the same ground.
Boots, however inventive, sounded too familiar to most people, and didn't come off as fresh. Magnificent, in its album form, would likely have resulted in a similar effect. Moment Of Surrender may not have burned up the charts, but it certainly doesn't sound like typical U2, and to many fans it was a powerful work. You shoot a video that takes place in Morocco and showcases the inspiration on the album, not in an abstract Mysterious Ways-style, either.
And maybe something magical happens.
We'll never know for sure. But Lanois and Eno aren't the problem, it's the band second-guessing themselves.
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Excellent post.
I agree mostly
Nick66
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Sadly, I fear U2 will agree with you and not use Danny & Brian on the next album, which is a pity, because there really hasn't been much the band has done post-War w/o those two that I can say I love.
Or let me rephrase that....I think the band works best when those two are around. Though, as I say, I agree with you that the band will likely feel it's time for a change.
But as Lazarus said, the problem isn't with Eno & Lanois.
Similar threads
