Bono: 'U2 album was too challenging'

[65980]

BVS, as usual, your post is laced with a heavy dose of undeserved elitism and arrogance. But don't worry, I'm here to straighten you out:

A lot of misconceptions in this post.

I assume the subtext of this statement means: "I know more than you do." Did I get that right?

Although many of us would like less time between album releases, it's not that uncommon, even younger bands are waiting longer lengths between releases.

Thanks for letting me know. Because, ya know, I didn't know that!

Zooropa was not really considered an offshoot by anyone outside the die hard community, it was just considered another album. It was hyped quite a bit and Numb and Lemon did well on video outlets but not on radio. So I'm not sure where your perceptions of Zooropa are coming from...

My perceptions are coming from reading the ads about the album in the weeks before it came out, buying it on the day of its release, and then talking about it (and U2) to dozens of people my age in classes, on campus, and in a city where they're hugely popular. I maintain that if Zooropa had come out in Nov. 1991 instead of Achtung Baby, it would have been perceived as a major disappointment, but because it was (a) released in the midst of ZooTV, and (b) released at the peak of alternative rock in North America, it was welcomed and given an easier acceptance than, say, Pop.

But the biggest misconception is that 360 is a huge success compared to PopMart.

See my response to Irvine511, above.

The other big misconception is that by all accounts, Pop and PopMart should have been HUGE. MTV was still big cheerleaders they had jumped on early with the next biggest thing: electronica, and they were coming off a hugely successful time in their lives. Everything was building this up to be the next coming.

By whose accounts? I cannot really understand your English here, sorry. U2 were anything but "coming off a hugely successful time in their lives" in 1997. At best, they had had a long layoff, and at worst, they were actually considered kind of washed up... which they were, sort of.

This time around they have very little to no markets for their songs to play. MTV is dead, radio gets worse every year, and now we have the internet allowing anyone to steal music. So almost nothing was on their side this time around.

I see. It's not U2's fault that they're not as popular, it's society's!

 

[The Sad Punk]

Right. Unless Adam starts writing the lyrics!

Could be a marginal improvement.

 

[U2girl]

Listen, it's fine if you don't like Zooropa. It's a style of music that some love and some hate. It's the fact that you slag off Zooropa and Pop whilst insisting everyone else isn't a proper fan unless they love the more recent albums makes you come off like a complete hypocrite.

Yes, wildly different to many people slaging of the last two or three albums and insisting those that like the 00's output aren't real fans.

 

[financeguy]

i think this is an astute post, but for two things:

1. the 360 tour is considered a smashing success, setting box office and attendance records and selling out almost everywhere; the reviews have been stellar. by contrast, what's most remembered about Popmart is that no one went to it, and the half empty stadiums particularly on the second N.A. leg. that was a dismal time to be a U2 fan. that has not and will not happen this time.

This is not my recollection at all. I remember this period as being an exciting time for music in general and U2 in particular.

i2. despite your personal feelings, NLOTH, while not a commercial smash, is certainly a stronger album than Pop -- "stronger" in the sense of critical acclaim and the general satisfaction of long-time U2 fans with the album.

Substitute Pop for HTDAAB or ATCYLB and I think this statement makes more sense! A lot of the longer term fans have made statements like 'their best since Pop' in assessing this album.

 

[financeguy]

Yes, wildly different to many people slaging of the last two or three albums and insisting those that like the 00's output aren't real fans.

I'm not aware of anyone saying this. But if someone views the two albums immediately previous to NLOTH as typical and representative of the band's work, then I'd have to say they're rather underinformed regarding the musical history and legacy of the band. 2000-2004 will go down as the only time when they knowingly dumbed down to suit the marketplace. That's four years out of thirty.

To give some examples.

Boy might have sounded a bit like some of the nu-wave bands but the lyrical concerns were very different.
October was a very controversial album for a rock band in 1981.

Songs like Bad and The Unforgettable Fire were completely untypical for 1984.

Achtung might have sounded a bit like the industrial music then becoming popular, but, again, the lyrical subject matter had little in common with these bands.

 

[U2girl]

It happens a lot in this forum. Much more than vice versa, but anyway...

I don't think anyone's saying ATYCLB or Bomb are typical and representative of the band's work. I also think 1997 can easily sit along in the "let's get trendy" corner, along with 2000.

 

[digitize]

It happens a lot in this forum. Much more than vice versa, but anyway...

I don't think anyone's saying ATYCLB or Bomb are typical and representative of the band's work. I also think 1997 can easily sit along in the "let's get trendy" corner, along with 2000.

Even though 1997's trendiness was entirely sarcastic?

 

[U2girl]

There was nothing sarcastic about all the loops and samples and a DJ producing their album. It was pretty obvious they were riding the new hot sound in music at the time. But alas they got away with it back then...

 

[gvox]

Irvine511, your points are all reasonable:

BVS, as usual, your post is laced with a heavy dose of undeserved elitism and arrogance. But don't worry, I'm here to straighten you out:

Solid gold.

 

[Irvine511]

This is not my recollection at all. I remember this period as being an exciting time for music in general and U2 in particular.

perhaps in Europe, not so in the US. there were half-filled stadiums, at best, in many markets in the US during the fall 1997 leg of the tour.

Substitute Pop for HTDAAB or ATCYLB and I think this statement makes more sense! A lot of the longer term fans have made statements like 'their best since Pop' in assessing this album.

no, not really. Pop is widely understood as a failure. simply because a lot of people in here became fans during the Pop era does not mean, in the broader history of U2, that said album is considered by those who write music articles and those who "decide" what did and what did not happen to be any good.

lots of people in here like Pop. some love Pop. i like Pop. the general U2 audience, and music fans in general, understand Pop as a perhaps noble failure. good, bad, right or wrong. likewise, ATYCLB is seen as a righteous return to form.

this is how the other half lives. at least in the US. and since the article is addressing the relative failure of the singles on the US charts -- though they all *tanked* in the UK as well -- it seems that this is the collective memory the band is trying to deal with.

i feel like it's both U2's greatest strength and weakness. they really do learn. they really do respond to criticism. they are at their best when they respond to negativity with creativity -- certainly AB, one could argue ATYCLB, perhaps NLOTH and TUF as well. but then they also can overcorrect, which could include the 1-2 combo of ATYCLB/Bomb.

 

[Irvine511]

also, i think that if "Magnificent" had been the lead-off single from this album, things could have been much different.

for the life of me, i cannot understand how that song didn't become a smash. it's like a U2-orgasm machine, and another worthy addition to the epic-Bonoquest song-of-longing that absolutely nobody can touch.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

also, i think that if "Magnificent" had been the lead-off single from this album, things could have been much different.

for the life of me, i cannot understand how that song didn't become a smash. it's like a U2-orgasm machine, and another worthy addition to the epic-Bonoquest song-of-longing that absolutely nobody can touch.

it really is flabbergasting, I've pretty much given up on popular music thanks to that.

 

[ultraviolet353]

For the first time ever, I do not love a U2 album, NLOTH. However, IMO, it is not that it is too complex, it is that it is too thin,a nd by the numbers There is no crescendo at all on the record. There is a very "by the numbers" feel to this record--and the poppy stuff is where it really falls short. U2 can do radio very well as demonstrated on ATYCLB and HTDAAB (and pretty much their whole career)--ATYCLB is poppy and is also a masterpiece. This record has Crazy--nuff said.

My opinion is that the band seems out of touch and too insular. I would have preferred that they build an album around NLOTH, BB, MOS, UC and COL. None of those songs, IMO, are soaring U2 classics, but they have a new and expansive feel atht I wish they had built on. I view this album as severely undercooked: the pop stuff, Boots, Crazy and SUC are three of the worst songs they've ever done--and really hamper the album. They fail at being pop greats, and because of that, they really have no place on the record. They really hamper the record. Putting pop crap on for pop sake is their biggest mis-step ever because they weren't hits, and they are crappy songs. Lose-lose.

The more interesting material on the record is either undercooked riffing like BB, or mellow and too linear, MOS, COL, NLOTH.

Bono is delusional if he thinks this record is too complex. It is just not a great record--a first for U2 IMO.

 

[mikal]

also, i think that if "Magnificent" had been the lead-off single from this album, things could have been much different.

for the life of me, i cannot understand how that song didn't become a smash. it's like a U2-orgasm machine, and another worthy addition to the epic-Bonoquest song-of-longing that absolutely nobody can touch.

yep. i mentioned in the SOA thread that this may be a blessing in disguise. i wouldn't doubt that U2 feels some pressure to get a new album out before the 2010 leg because of the lack of success that NLOTH had on the charts.

with that said, i think Magnificent and the album NLOTH are incredible and it's the public's fault for not accepting it, not U2's.

 

[MilotheMayor]

For the first time ever, I do not love a U2 album, NLOTH. However, IMO, it is not that it is too complex, it is that it is too thin,a nd by the numbers There is no crescendo at all on the record. There is a very "by the numbers" feel to this record--and the poppy stuff is where it really falls short. U2 can do radio very well as demonstrated on ATYCLB and HTDAAB (and pretty much their whole career)--ATYCLB is poppy and is also a masterpiece. This record has Crazy--nuff said.

My opinion is that the band seems out of touch and too insular. I would have preferred that they build an album around NLOTH, BB, MOS, UC and COL. None of those songs, IMO, are soaring U2 classics, but they have a new and expansive feel atht I wish they had built on. I view this album as severely undercooked: the pop stuff, Boots, Crazy and SUC are three of the worst songs they've ever done--and really hamper the album. They fail at being pop greats, and because of that, they really have no place on the record. They really hamper the record. Putting pop crap on for pop sake is their biggest mis-step ever because they weren't hits, and they are crappy songs. Lose-lose.

The more interesting material on the record is either undercooked riffing like BB, or mellow and too linear, MOS, COL, NLOTH.

Bono is delusional if he thinks this record is too complex. It is just not a great record--a first for U2 IMO.

I agree wholeheartedly with this post. Just wanted to give you some props before you get flamed.

 

[mikal]

I agree wholeheartedly with this post. Just wanted to give you some props before you get flamed.

woah. Atease at Interference?

not gonna flame Ultraviolet353. it's not like he's right and i'm wrong or vice versa. it's all a matter of opinion. i think NLOTH is amazing, he doesn't.

 

[nielsgov]

I agree wholeheartedly with this post. Just wanted to give you some props before you get flamed.

Yes the flaming can begin now.

 

[senrab]

I find Boots to be a Vertigo re-write. You could sing the chorus to Vertigo over the Boots chorus and it would fit.

 

[BVS]

BVS, as usual, your post is laced with a heavy dose of undeserved elitism and arrogance. But don't worry, I'm here to straighten you out:

And I guess your thinking was to answer any perceived arrogance with real arrogance tenfold?

I'm not sure what personal issue you have with me, I've been kind enough to answer any misconception you had of me through PM, you apologized, yet you still stir this shit every time I respond to something you say.

My perceptions are coming from reading the ads about the album in the weeks before it came out, buying it on the day of its release, and then talking about it (and U2) to dozens of people my age in classes, on campus, and in a city where they're hugely popular. I maintain that if Zooropa had come out in Nov. 1991 instead of Achtung Baby, it would have been perceived as a major disappointment, but because it was (a) released in the midst of ZooTV, and (b) released at the peak of alternative rock in North America, it was welcomed and given an easier acceptance than, say, Pop.

Well this is a little different than what you stated before. Yes if Zooropa was released before AB it wouldn't have had made sense, BUT to the general public there was not a whole lot insight into this being a quick album done admist a tour, this was just the follow up to AB and for the most part marketed as such.

By whose accounts? I cannot really understand your English here, sorry. U2 were anything but "coming off a hugely successful time in their lives" in 1997. At best, they had had a long layoff, and at worst, they were actually considered kind of washed up... which they were, sort of.

Washed up? How do you figure? Their previous tour was considered groundbreaking, the previous two albums were huge critical successes, they owned the early 90's along side grunge and hip hop. So by all accounts Pop should have done well just by riding on those coattails. I don't know how you could say they were washed up!

I see. It's not U2's fault that they're not as popular, it's society's!

You deny that media markets have an effect? Really?

 

[BVS]

I find Boots to be a Vertigo re-write. You could sing the chorus to Vertigo over the Boots chorus and it would fit.

Um... no.

 

[mikal]

U2 is good. no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not!

 

[ultraviolet353]

I agree it is all a matter of opinion--after all Pop is their best record, IMO.

However, I think to say the album is too complex is laughable. If anything (and even many who love this album claim) it is the poppy stuff that ruins the album, and that is 27% of the record. Of the songs that I like on the album NLOTH, BB, MOS, COL there just seems to be something missing--I find myslef wnating something to happen in these songs, and it doesn't. Especially on MOS.

one last thing about Magnificent--when I first heard this song, I thought it was an instant classic. But...again after some time, it just comes off as "thin." Almost like cotton candy, it now melts on impact--lacks any crescendo as it starts at 10 and ends at 10. It starts with such a rush, it has nowhere to go. It is also a very poppy song, IMO, which bumps the record up to 36% pop. Complex!?!?!?! I think not.

 

[Zoocoustic]

Bono sure has come a long way from the "we may lose some of the pop kids but we don't need them!" comment from the glorious zoo-tv days...

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

However, I think to say the album is too complex is laughable.

not as complex as their 90's material but certianly more complex than their last two albums.

 

[BVS]

If anything (and even many who love this album claim) it is the poppy stuff that ruins the album, and that is 27% of the record.
It is also a very poppy song, IMO, which bumps the record up to 36% pop. Complex!?!?!?! I think not.

You see? That's complex.

I find myslef wnating something to happen in these songs, and it doesn't. Especially on MOS.

How can you want anymore out of MOS? It's worthy. It's the one song that could have easily been given an obvious crescendo, but's it's just implied making it a beautifully complex creature.

Bono sure has come a long way from the "we may lose some of the pop kids but we don't need them!" comment from the glorious zoo-tv days...

I love how this quote gets so misused these days.

 

[ultraviolet353]

U2 needs to realize that RELEVANCE is their currency. Not sales, not radio.

If they attempt to woo sales and radio as they did with Boots/Crazy/SUC they will cease being relevant, IMO. Just last night, the reference to "new songs" made me cringe. There is a tacit lack of confidence that has been sown by the lackluster reaction to the album and the songs in a live setting.

What has always set U2 apart is people come to see the new songs--they demand it. It seems less full throated this time around. Again, because I feel the songs aren't there. Even NLOTH, a song I like, doesn't sound all that great live--When I first heard that song I thought it was SURE to be the opener, and now I know why it isn't. It lacks something live.

 

[gvox]

U2 is good. no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not! yes they are! no they're not!

But how do you really feel about U2, Mikal?

 

[Irvine511]

U2 needs to realize that RELEVANCE is their currency. Not sales, not radio.

generally, in popular music, relevant music is what is selling and played on the radio.

 

[mikal]

Bono sure has come a long way from the "we may lose some of the pop kids but we don't need them!" comment from the glorious zoo-tv days...

yeah, but that was 17 years ago. i sure hope i don't act like i do now in 17 years.

 

[Irvine511]

yeah, but that was 17 years ago. i sure hope i don't act like i do now in 17 years.

also, that quote is probably right up there with "don't mean to bug 'ya" and "maybe, maybe too much talk" in the Top 10 Reasons Why People Hate Bono.