Brand Spankin' New Article on U2 'We're not done'

[mr.edge]

'U2 believe they have not yet written their best album and don't understand why other bands aren't as ambitious as they are.'

U2 - U2 Want To Be Better - Contactmusic News

So is u2's best album already made or can they top it?

 

[Yahweh]

It's likely behind them but as long as they truly have the ambition to do something great they should still continue to make music. If they can do better then Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby all the power to them, if anybody can do it they can.

 

[indra]

"You think about other art forms and artists — filmmakers, painters, sculptors. It doesn't follow that your best work is done in your late twenties, early thirties, and then it's downhill."

Sounds as if someone's been reading Kilbey.

 

[Yahweh]

"You think about other art forms and artists — filmmakers, painters, sculptors. It doesn't follow that your best work is done in your late twenties, early thirties, and then it's downhill."

Same quotes they were using around the time when promoting ATYCLB.....and reapplying for the job...

 

[Rob33]

this interview isn't really "brand spankin new"

it's cut and pasted from the original interview posted a couple days ago on U2.com

 

[Yahweh_OMG]

I have doubts they can top JT or AB, I guess there is almost no chance. However, even though NLOTH was not commercially was U2 expected, I think it's by far their best work in 12 - 17 years! And I'm sure they have a few more albums as good as that up their sleeves.... but come on, another Achtung Baby.....

 

[U2girl]

Maybe something that can get mentioned in the same breath with Joshua/Baby, but best album ? No.

 

[God Part III]

I understand that in the greater scheme of things, the history of music and everything, this is not so, but in my opinion, No Line On The Horizon is better than Joshua Tree.

 

[SBU2]

Its not everyday you see a band nearly 50 making there best album yet from a 30 year career. The only band that stands a chance of doing that is, U2?

 

[The Disciple]

I understand that in the greater scheme of things, the history of music and everything, this is not so, but in my opinion, No Line On The Horizon is better than Joshua Tree.

 

[65980]

The fact that as many people (including young people) take U2 this seriously, this far into their career, is kind of stunning. It proves that they are a contemporary group, still hugely relevant. Everything about U2 defies the rock'n'roll laws of probability and physics, so if anyone can top themselves after 30+ years with the same line-up, it's them.

Good thing they didn't go into sports like Larry's cousin, or we wouldn't be able to have a serious conversation about their still getting better in their 50s.

 

[bram]

To my mind, whether they can top AB or JT isn't really the question. As long as they're hungry and they're aiming this high, I think we'll continue to get great stuff from them. When their mindset or motivation shifts from this, they'll call it quits rather than pull the cheap stunts and shitty albums that most bands scrape together at this point in their careers. U2 have already had lightning strike a couple times (at least), and I'm perfectly happy to get a few more NLOTH-quality (an easy top-5 U2 album for me) albums.

 

[Tyagu_Anaykus]

What do you mean lightning strike? you mean POP? And the other? Rattle and Hum?

 

[powerhour24]

We've seen evidence for them still being quite creative and ambitious over the past decade, so the ability is still there. But they need to get over their doubts and release things when they are still cohesive, it takes a complete concept to build an iconic album, and the last time they had a perfectly cohesive album was Zooropa. They're still great songwriters, but Edge and Bono need to trust their new-direction gut like they did with AB for things to change.

 

[bram]

What do you mean lightning strike? you mean POP? And the other? Rattle and Hum?

I meant JT and AB (and I think you could argue ATYCLB given BD as well as the 9/11 'soundtrack' status). While it probably wasn't clear, I was referring to more than just the albums being great--these were special times for U2 where everything seemed to line up/come together. This probably won't happen again, even if they continue to release great albums (and I think NLOTH is a great album)...just because, well, how many times can lightning strike? (And even if it doesn't stop them, their age certainly isn't going to help them with the young).

 

[digitize]

I understand that in the greater scheme of things, the history of music and everything, this is not so, but in my opinion, No Line On The Horizon is better than Joshua Tree.

Mmm I agree.

 

[mr.edge]

I was thinking earlier today what their defining moment of their careers are so far and its The Joshua Tree.

The Joshua Tree album made them Rock Gods. In MY opinion Achtung Baby kicked as much arse as Joshua Tree did, but the mainstream didn't think so. Some didn't like the 'new and improved, experimental u2' and thats when they started losing some fans.

u2 losing out on Grammy's for Achtung Baby is a crime!

But what I love about u2 is they're always hungry and want to do something different. The 'Stones' are always the 'Stones' 'Led Zeppelin' has always been 'Led Zeppelin'. There legendary Rock n Roll bands but they're always the same.

 

[65980]

A quick check of the sales figures shows that Joshua Tree has sold 10 million + in the USA (where you live) and Achtung 8 million +, and, if anything, had an even higher-profile tour than JT's. So, the difference isn't really that big.

Obviously a group can only make it HUGE once. So, there will always be the (correct) perception of The Joshua Tree making U2 big in the USA. But it is quite amazing that they managed to match it (more or less) in both sales and critical approval 4.5 years later, with a totally fresh style. And then, to have entered almost the same realm of popular success ten years after that (in the 2000-2001 period) is almost unprecedented.

I don't think any of U2's post-punk peers can be said to have done this. R.E.M. peaked commercially at the end of the '80s to about 1995 and then sunk quickly and permanently. Simple Minds declined quickly after 1989. Nobody thought the Use Your Illusions were as good as Appetite for Destruction. (One could make an argument for Red Hot Chili Peppers and Green Day having made big middle-aged comebacks, but neither of them make TWO peak-period albums in close succession -- ala JT and AB -- that defined the times and matched each other in massive commerical and critical success.)

So, U2 are unique. They'll probably still be talking about being the biggest band when they're in the Dublin seniors' home and Edge needs a B12-shot to sit up in his wheelchair.

 

[mr.edge]

A quick check of the sales figures shows that Joshua Tree has sold 10 million + in the USA (where you live) and Achtung 8 million +, and, if anything, had an even higher-profile tour than JT's. So, the difference isn't really that big.

Obviously a group can only make it HUGE once. So, there will always be the (correct) perception of The Joshua Tree making U2 big in the USA. But it is quite amazing that they managed to match it (more or less) in both sales and critical approval 4.5 years later, with a totally fresh style. And then, to have entered almost the same realm of popular success ten years after that (in the 2000-2001 period) is almost unprecedented.

I don't think any of U2's post-punk peers can be said to have done this. R.E.M. peaked commercially at the end of the '80s to about 1995 and then sunk quickly and permanently. Simple Minds declined quickly after 1989. Nobody thought the Use Your Illusions were as good as Appetite for Destruction. (One could make an argument for Red Hot Chili Peppers and Green Day having made big middle-aged comebacks, but neither of them make TWO peak-period albums in close succession -- ala JT and AB -- that defined the times and matched each other in massive commerical and critical success.)

So, U2 are unique. They'll probably still be talking about being the biggest band when they're in the Dublin seniors' home and Edge needs a B12-shot to sit up in his wheelchair.

None of those bands you listed besides u2 made it out of the 80's for one big reason: they stuck with their formula for the 80's. They weren't ready for the 90's music.

One of u2's last concert of the 80's they even told the crowd 'we cant go on like this forever' meaning they needed to change their direction. and what do you get? 'THE FLY' and Achtung Baby. Adam and Larry didn't like the idea Edge and Bono were going but the trust came back between the whole band after the guitar riff for 'One' was heard. From there it was history.

Going to Germany was one of the best things for them seeing the Berlin wall break down. The album not only signified the end and beginning of a new era for music but for the world as well.

u2 is still the only group that can go from mainstream rock directly to electronic/dance rock and do just as well in 3 years.

but i agree with your post 100%.

plus i would pay to see edge in his wheelchair 30 years from now and have to get shot up haha

 

[Rob33]

The fact that as many people (including young people) take U2 this seriously, this far into their career, is kind of stunning. It proves that they are a contemporary group, still hugely relevant. Everything about U2 defies the rock'n'roll laws of probability and physics, so if anyone can top themselves after 30+ years with the same line-up, it's them.

I completely agree.

 

[BVS]

None of those bands you listed besides u2 made it out of the 80's for one big reason: they stuck with their formula for the 80's. They weren't ready for the 90's music.

What?! R.E.M. had their biggest success in the 90's...

 

[nielsgov]

Nice article and good news. For me personally NLOTH is one of their best and shows that they can still make great great albums.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

ok, putting on flame retardant suit of lights... (see what i did there?)

if bono steps back from the campaigning and concentrates more on his craft, his lyric writing... then yes, i believe it is possible that u2 could create an album that is greater than anything else they have ever done. as u2 as a band have been getting tighter and more mature, the thing that hasn't come along for the ride has been bono's lyrics... which have been brilliant at times and absolutely dreadful and cheesey at times. when the man is being pulled in so many directions, it's hard to really blame him... but as great as the work that he does is, i'd love for him to step back, pick and chose his spots, and let somebody else run with the torch for a while.

all that being said, despite the fact that i do believe that u2 can, creatively, still come up with their best work, i highly doubt that most of the masses will hold that work to be greater than the joshua tree or achtung baby, simply because that's how things seem to work. except for rolling stone... they'll slurp anything u2 does.

 

[U2girl]

JT and AB are huge legacies to compete with.

Beside the lyrical focus/idea for Bono (nice to see he has a lyrical idea for SOA), another issue is Edge needs a new sound. Sometimes they also get help by an outside factor; fascination with America for JT, breakdown of the band/Edge's marriage for AB. 9/11 helped with the tour and ATYCLB's popularity, for another example.

 

[mr.edge]

What?! R.E.M. had their biggest success in the 90's...

didn't know that. i was also in elementary school a majority of the time.

 

[gweeps]

Well, Larry did his best drumming since Achtung Baby on NLOTH, so anything is possible...

 

[waynetravis]

I understand that in the greater scheme of things, the history of music and everything, this is not so, but in my opinion, No Line On The Horizon is better than Joshua Tree.

 

[trojanchick99]

ok, putting on flame retardant suit of lights... (see what i did there?)

if bono steps back from the campaigning and concentrates more on his craft, his lyric writing... then yes, i believe it is possible that u2 could create an album that is greater than anything else they have ever done. as u2 as a band have been getting tighter and more mature, the thing that hasn't come along for the ride has been bono's lyrics... which have been brilliant at times and absolutely dreadful and cheesey at times. when the man is being pulled in so many directions, it's hard to really blame him... but as great as the work that he does is, i'd love for him to step back, pick and chose his spots, and let somebody else run with the torch for a while.

all that being said, despite the fact that i do believe that u2 can, creatively, still come up with their best work, i highly doubt that most of the masses will hold that work to be greater than the joshua tree or achtung baby, simply because that's how things seem to work. except for rolling stone... they'll slurp anything u2 does.

I agree, and given the comments on the Elvis Costello show, Bono would too. That said, even not at his absolute best, NLOTH was better lyrically than Bomb.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

JT and AB are huge legacies to compete with.

Beside the lyrical focus/idea for Bono (nice to see he has a lyrical idea for SOA), another issue is Edge needs a new sound. Sometimes they also get help by an outside factor; fascination with America for JT, breakdown of the band/Edge's marriage for AB. 9/11 helped with the tour and ATYCLB's popularity, for another example.

Maybe the whole Adam and that woman stealing from him thing? Adam would surely love to rock the hell outta the bass.

Well, Larry did his best drumming since Achtung Baby on NLOTH, so anything is possible...

How about Pop?

 

[TonyH]

As long as the band still has the desire to create great music, then there really is no reason why they can't. Can they ever top Achtung; probably not. But do they really need to?

Personally, I'm not holding out too much hope for another masterpiece, but I'm willing to bet that whatever they release; it'll be more than adequate.