Bono: 'U2 album was too challenging'

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
Just to comment on some thoughts and ideas:

"designed for the radio, 2004 album" - only if you hear 11 Vertigos. Nothing on the radio sounded like 80's U2 at the time.

"Nothing on ATYCLB is experimental" - not in the 90's U2 sense maybe, but they've never tried a pop album before (and similarly, they never did a retro album before Bomb).

"they took less time before" - true, maybe due to getting better at the craft of writing (and being inspired - it's great when it happens but not every album will be JT and not every song will be One). That said, now we get to hear every bit of studio progress news, the beach clips, the progress of songs.
Streets took about half of the entire 6 months of JT sessions. We know that Lillywhite had to work on Wild horses for a full month (album itself only really came together in the last two or three months before release). Who knows what else took a lot of time then, but we don't know about it because we don't have the insight of the current age, thanks to the internet ? You may say "Bono's actism slows them down" but why was NLOTH the longest wait (he spent more time in the studio compared to Behind and Bomb) ?

Looking at the last few albums though -- switching producers for Pop and Bomb, delaying Pop and NLOTH (and kind-of Bomb even if the October 2003 date Bono and Edge pushed for was never official), re-starting the sessions for ATYCLB (according to an atu2 article), abandoning Rubin sessions in 2006...I doubt there were divisions in the band for all of the above (in fact it was only reported for Bomb). Is it too much perfectionism ? Doesn't account for the strongly rumoured 2010 release for SOA. You can say they're scared of Pop/mart part II, but that went away with ATYCLB and Bomb. They're touring an album like NLOTH on stadiums, that's gutsy as far as I'm concerned.
 
It looks like people are over-thinking things. The problem is very simple: They picked the wrong lead single. To a casual listener GOYB sounded like Vertigo part II. To go away for 5 years and then come back with a lead single so similar to your last lead single is a poor strategy.....

If they had listened to Eno and picked MOS, the album would have sold. Simple as that!
(IMHO)
 
I agree, Boots was the wrong choice. They should've kicked off promoting the album with Magnificent, and IMO Magnificent would've gotten thru much easier if it was arranged and mixed differently, as someone else has said in this thread, if it had "somewhere to go", because the version we have is pretty good and pleasing to the ear but it doesn't have that lift to it, it should've been more of a slowburning anthem that climaxes every chorus. I think the climax as it stands is when the guitar riff comes in at the beginning, before Bono even sings! That's a bad place to position your climax. Well, at least the guitar solo is fucking awesome. Love it when Edge plays the slide.
 
I agree, Boots was the wrong choice. They should've kicked off promoting the album with Magnificent, and IMO Magnificent would've gotten thru much easier if it was arranged and mixed differently, as someone else has said in this thread, if it had "somewhere to go", because the version we have is pretty good and pleasing to the ear but it doesn't have that lift to it, it should've been more of a slowburning anthem that climaxes every chorus. I think the climax as it stands is when the guitar riff comes in at the beginning, before Bono even sings! That's a bad place to position your climax. Well, at least the guitar solo is fucking awesome. Love it when Edge plays the slide.

I think Magnificent is perfect as it is. :shrug:
 
I think Magnificent is perfect as it is. :shrug:

I'm all for U2 being subtle, and usually i'm left there thinking "damn i wish they would've toned it down a little on that one"...on the album version of Magnificent its like subtle and heavy handed at the same time. It feels like it should've gone in one direction or the other, either in a subtle electronic synthesizer approach to wash over you in a chilling awe-inspiring way, or in a larger than life way with not as many keyboards, more organic instrumentation, and a better buildup to that only love chorus...more of a Bad approach to the song to give you an idea of what i mean. Start out soft and build build build thru the intro thru the verses and into that enormous ocean of a chorus. The version we have climaxes when Edge comes in during the intro. That to me, besides the midpoint guitar solo, is the most exciting part of the song, when Bono's vocals during the chorus should've been the selling point.

Don't get me wrong, it's still a great song, just in my eyes executed wrong.

Kind of like if Beautiful Day started out full sonic blast with an instrumental chorus before giving way to the calm hushed verse. Wouldn't have been the same.
 
Maybe it's just a case of U2 fatigue, a la 1997 and 1988 and so none of the singles (and partially the album) worked.
 
Age doesn't help, definitey.

But consider U2 has had a run of two big albums/tours and were ALL OVER the media in 2000 and 2004. And the remasters and the Best ofs, the Superbowl, Bono being in the media on his own, U23D, the biography etc...maybe now enough is enough for the world ? Just like it was enough with Rattle and Hum (after being everywhere with JT) and Pop (being everywhere with AB and Zoo TV).
 
It brought tears to my eyes the first time I heard it. :heart:

And my first thought was this should be the first single.

Me too, I work right next to the BBC studio on Oxford Street, so i was lucky enough to see them play there live, that was where I first heard Magnificent.
That said, I saw a clip on youtube showing an alternate opening to Magnificent, featuring a group of Moroccon musicians playing with the band at the riad in Fez, it took my breath away.. I wish that version was available on record.
 
Amen to that brother. It is worrying how Bono has worded this article about their lastest album. Its a great album. Its their best since Pop, another flop. But when you are pushing 50 and yer album is not full of pop hits your not going to sell shitloads. It would be very embarrasing to see U2 go and create something similar to ATYCLB and break out another Beautiful Day. I like Beautiful Day but I just hope U2 don't go that route for the sake of selling records to the masses!

Well, I think ATYCLB is one of the best albums U2 has ever done. So I would have no problem with something equal to that or better.

But, the band is selling tons of albums with NLOTH! Look at the following facts:

THE BEST SELLING ALBUMS WORLDWIDE IN 2009 AS OF WEEK 43

1. Lady Gaga The Fame 3.811.000
2. U2 No Line On The Horizon 3.463.000
3. Michael Jackson Thriller 3.156.000
4. Kings Of Leon Only By The Night 3.037.000
5. Michael Jackson Number Ones (since 2009) 2.962.000
6. Black Eyed Peas The E.N.D. 2.784.000
7. Eminem Relapse 2.783.000
8. Taylor Swift Fearless 2.755.500
9. Soundtrack Hannah Montana: The Movie 2.597.000
10. Beyoncé I Am... Sasha Fierce 2.584.000
11. Michael Jackson The Essential (since 2009) 2.433.500
12. Green Day 21st Century Breakdown 2.428.000
13. Soundtrack Twilight 2.194.000
14. Pink Funhouse 2.119.000
15. Michael Jackson King Of Pop 1.828.000



This is 2009 and its impossible for albums to sell 10 million copies thanks to internet downloading, file sharing, CD burning and other ways of obtaining music for free. If you can sell 3 million copies of an album worldwide in under a year in this environment, your what the industry today would consider a red hot artist!
 
Age doesn't help, definitey.

But consider U2 has had a run of two big albums/tours and were ALL OVER the media in 2000 and 2004. And the remasters and the Best ofs, the Superbowl, Bono being in the media on his own, U23D, the biography etc...maybe now enough is enough for the world ? Just like it was enough with Rattle and Hum (after being everywhere with JT) and Pop (being everywhere with AB and Zoo TV).

Well, in the case of RH and Pop, those albums songs just weren't as good as their previous albums. If you had to play desert island, even among Interferencers, there are few (yes there are some, hi) who would choose Pop over AB or R&H over JT. Despite the overall preference here, imo, most would choose HTDAAB over NLOTH, even me I guess though I still think I prefer NLOTH over the Bomb. But on a desert island, Vertigo, Sometimes and COBL feel as much a part of U2 cannon as Sunday Bloody Sunday or Streets. I can't say the same for the NLOTH songs. Maybe it'll take time and continue to grow. Maybe I need to see them live, I dunno. But I feel that disconnect with this album too; and I still rate it 3rd and am completely happy with the release.
 
But, the band is selling tons of albums with NLOTH! Look at the following facts:

THE BEST SELLING ALBUMS WORLDWIDE IN 2009 AS OF WEEK 43

1. Lady Gaga The Fame 3.811.000
2. U2 No Line On The Horizon 3.463.000
3. Michael Jackson Thriller 3.156.000
4. Kings Of Leon Only By The Night 3.037.000
5. Michael Jackson Number Ones (since 2009) 2.962.000
6. Black Eyed Peas The E.N.D. 2.784.000
7. Eminem Relapse 2.783.000
8. Taylor Swift Fearless 2.755.500
9. Soundtrack Hannah Montana: The Movie 2.597.000
10. Beyoncé I Am... Sasha Fierce 2.584.000
11. Michael Jackson The Essential (since 2009) 2.433.500
12. Green Day 21st Century Breakdown 2.428.000
13. Soundtrack Twilight 2.194.000
14. Pink Funhouse 2.119.000
15. Michael Jackson King Of Pop 1.828.000

This is 2009 and its impossible for albums to sell 10 million copies thanks to internet downloading, file sharing, CD burning and other ways of obtaining music for free. If you can sell 3 million copies of an album worldwide in under a year in this environment, your what the industry today would consider a red hot artist!

2nd biggest selling album of the year, that's pretty good. In fact has a U2 album ever done so well before? Where did The Joshua Tree, Achtung Baby & ATYCLB place in terms of year end charts? Anyone know?
 
the fact that Thriller is just behind it is fucking mind boggling. We certainly aren’t seeing any Michael Jackson fatigue…

Hey, don't blame all of us. I was tired of Michael Jackson by the early 80s. :)
 
This is all Bono's fault, if he would wear a different outfit everyday and not the same old shirt all the time they could outsale Lady GaGa.

I think he should wear an outfit made of Miss Piggys...

lady-gaga-kermit-image-1-332417061.jpg
 
It looks like people are over-thinking things. The problem is very simple: They picked the wrong lead single. To a casual listener GOYB sounded like Vertigo part II. To go away for 5 years and then come back with a lead single so similar to your last lead single is a poor strategy.....

If they had listened to Eno and picked MOS, the album would have sold. Simple as that!
(IMHO)

This, although I think Magnificent could have also made a perfectly fine lead single.
 
This is 2009 and its impossible for albums to sell 10 million copies thanks to internet downloading, file sharing, CD burning and other ways of obtaining music for free. If you can sell 3 million copies of an album worldwide in under a year in this environment, your what the industry today would consider a red hot artist!

MJ has sold 10M plus this year if you add up all the albums.

the fact that Thriller is just behind it is fucking mind boggling. We certainly aren’t seeing any Michael Jackson fatigue…

Definitely not. Taken as a whole, his albums are outselling U2's by somewhere around 3:1 this year.
 
I didn't read through this whole thread. My opinion is U2 can do whatever they like. Every album since War I have liked at least 4 songs on each album. JT, Achtung and for me ATYCLB were the exceptions that were complete or near complete albums. Lets face it, to have 4 or 5 good songs an album for an artist that has been around as long as U2 is pretty damn good! Unlike acts like the Stones that don't offer ANYTHING new. U2 still has the ability to put out good music. I'm not sure they will ever do a JT or Achtung again but most artist never have 1 album like either. They have 2. They are going to go down as one of the greatest rock bands of all time and I'm biased obviously but I think they deserve it. I'm just happy they are still around, making new music, and touring. It isn't going to last forever, enjoy it as long as you can, whatever road they take. :)
 
This, although I think Magnificent could have also made a perfectly fine lead single.

I'll agree that Magnificent would have been stronger than GOYB. But I think a lot of people may have still felt it was nothing they hadn't heard U2 do before.... (I think that's why it wasn't a successful second single.)

The point is, good song or no - GOYB was the worst choice for lead single they could have made!
 
I didn't read through this whole thread. My opinion is U2 can do whatever they like. Every album since War I have liked at least 4 songs on each album. JT, Achtung and for me ATYCLB were the exceptions that were complete or near complete albums. Lets face it, to have 4 or 5 good songs an album for an artist that has been around as long as U2 is pretty damn good! Unlike acts like the Stones that don't offer ANYTHING new. U2 still has the ability to put out good music. I'm not sure they will ever do a JT or Achtung again but most artist never have 1 album like either. They have 2. They are going to go down as one of the greatest rock bands of all time and I'm biased obviously but I think they deserve it. I'm just happy they are still around, making new music, and touring. It isn't going to last forever, enjoy it as long as you can, whatever road they take. :)

:up:

this really is the best attitude to have.
 
On the topic of relevance and what not, let me ask people this:

How much do you think it has to do with age?

How many musicians have remained relevant at their age? And out of those how consistent were they?
 
On the topic of relevance and what not, let me ask people this:

How much do you think it has to do with age?

How many musicians have remained relevant at their age? And out of those how consistent were they?

Well, most rock musicians tend to lose their fire within 10 years. Then their new work becomes irrelevant.

That hasn't happened to U2, not in a big way.

However, I think the public is perceiving them as old and that is a problem from a sales perspective.

"They'll want their money back if you're alive at thirty-three."
 
Well, most rock musicians tend to lose their fire within 10 years. Then their new work becomes irrelevant.

That hasn't happened to U2, not in a big way.

However, I think the public is perceiving them as old and that is a problem from a sales perspective.

"They'll want their money back if you're alive at thirty-three."

Exactly.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom