Interesting interview w/ Bono from 2005

[The Sad Punk]

Yeah, I just rhymed "list" with "p*ssed"... Don't think Bono's looking over his shoulder quite yet.

On the contrary, at times he'd probably steal it.

 

[monsieur fly]

My problem with critics is they rarely put themselves in the shoes of those they criticize. Even on Elevation, I recall the audience spacing out during "Gone" (too bad too because I love that song). By the mid-point of that tour, I think "Staring at the Sun" was the only Pop representative that regularly landed in the set list. My point is, if "Kot" were the lead singer and songs from Zooropa and Pop were killing the show each night, there's no way he would continue to shove them down the audience's throat. He may have an argument - or at least a preference - when it comes to criticism of their albums, but c'mon, dude. What's Bono going to do when 20-80 thousand people want to hear WOWY.... pull out "Babyface"? Extreme example, I admit, but U2 has a responsibility in the live show to entertain and if certain songs aren't getting it done, they are going to be dropped. .

I don't think playing three or four songs from those albums is shoving Zooropa and Pop down peoples' throats and anyhow, if you go out there and play the songs people will get used to them in time. Bowie played a lot of his 90s stuff on his last tour and audiences repsonded well to it. Furthermore, some of the warhorses to which you refer no longer work- people's initial enthusiasm at hearing WOWY bombs pretty quickly when Bono sings it so badly. I just think your argument is needlessly pessimistic.

 

[U2387]

Now perhaps Kot was intemperate but maybe that was necessary to counterbalance the deeply conservative sentiments of the band at that time.

I would say he was more unrealistic, as rexstardust pointed out.

Given U2's need to please 20-80,000 people night in and night out, it is amazing that they even throw in the 3-4 fan favorites/rarities they do most shows.

The First Time, Stay, Your Blue Room and Miss Sarajevo could have easily been replaced by WOWY, All I Want Is You and The Sweetest Thing each time they appeared and the only difference would have been a better reception from most of the audience.

In this respect, U2 is far from conservative, and they play more of these kind of songs than most bands that fill arenas and stadiums.

Zooropa and Passengers, regardless of how much you or I like them, no one can have any reasonable beef with U2 for not playing more songs from them.

Pop is a different story. First, it was a full length album and "U2 era" unlike Zooropa and Passengers. A lot of the general public lump AB and Zooropa together and consider Pop the true follow up to the AB/Zoo TV era.

When you have songs that came off extremely well live in 1997/98(LNOE, Gone, Please, MOFO) that still sound fresh against a lot of other U2 material and have only gotten more popular with the fan base, with the claw begging for them, you ditch 2 or 3 ATYCLB songs and put 2 or 3 of the Pop songs in!

Not to mention, Hold Me Thrill Me...., a song from Popmart Tour which a lot of us here would like on 360, myself included, was a hit!

Conservative at the time? 2005.

U2 was playing songs from Boy again, and pretty close to the top of the show. This despite the fact that a good amount of the audience was not even alive for when they came out and were first played.

They also experimented with the set more than ever(Lovetown only possible argument here) and brought in The First Time and Miss Sarajevo despite the fact that there was no mass demand for either, as welcome as they were for me, and despite the fact that the decision to play something else instead would not even have been noticed by the average attendee or critic or Q editor.

Kot did an interesting interview overall, and again, I have no problem with U2 answering challenging questions. However, with that particular statement, he became unrealistic, unfair and self indulgent, attacking U2 from a "you lack balls" standpoint because the pre show e mail of Kot's personal wish list had been ignored most of the time.

At least that is what I get from it.

 

[U2387]

I don't think playing three or four songs from those albums is shoving Zooropa and Pop down peoples' throats

Well, its not shoving them down peoples' throats, and they were playing 3 or 4 songs from these albums during the period Kot was criticizing.

Miss Sarajevo
Stay
First Time
Disco
Staring At The Sun
Gone
Wake Up Dead Man

Each tour, Elevation and Vertigo, had its 3 or 4 from Pop/Zoo/Passengers.

So as I see it, and I think this is the only way one can see it, Kot is asking for a lot more from these albums, practical concerns about pleasing people aside.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

What's Bono going to do when 20-80 thousand people want to hear WOWY.... pull out "Babyface"? Extreme example, I admit, but U2 has a responsibility in the live show to entertain and if certain songs aren't getting it done, they are going to be dropped.

Exactly. Besides that, some albums, like it or not, just didn't do very well in certain parts of the world for whatever reason, so U2 is probably going to find it pointless to play a lot of stuff from them. Unfortunately, most people just want to hear the hits, and nothing else.

Me, personally, I just want to be able to see U2 at some point in my life, and if I ever get lucky enough to do so, they can play whatever the hell they want and I'll be happy. But my mindset is not the mindset of many people, as I've come to realize over time.

Angela

 

[MadForIt]

Bono knows that Noel Gallagher is GOD

 

[Tyagu_Anaykus]

Exactly. Besides that, some albums, like it or not, just didn't do very well in certain parts of the world for whatever reason, so U2 is probably going to find it pointless to play a lot of stuff from them. Unfortunately, most people just want to hear the hits, and nothing else.

Me, personally, I just want to be able to see U2 at some point in my life, and if I ever get lucky enough to do so, they can play whatever the hell they want and I'll be happy. But my mindset is not the mindset of many people, as I've come to realize over time.

Angela

You never saw them?

 

[BVS]

Bono knows that Noel Gallagher is GOD

That's a bad bump...

 

[PhilsFan]

Holy shit, that interview is baffling. It's amazing how I disagree with nearly everything Bono has said and done for the past ten years.

 

[ozeeko]

They should open the next tour with Slug.

J/K (actually i would love that) - but it's pretty simple. U2 are entertainers, they have to entertain not just the die-hards, but also the casual fans, and the ones who were dragged to the concert and only like 2 songs. As long as they keep playing stadiums and arenas, the set-lists will remain pretty similar. If they did a tour that centered around lesser known songs, not only would I be amped to attend, but i'd have to locate the next concert quick, for I doubt they would keep such a setlist for very long. Casual fans would be flipping out, and let's face it, that's an enormous chunk of the audience. U2 would have to be fearless and not give a crap what the public thinks to pull off this kind of move. I dunno, do you think that's possible? Anyway, this is pretty much a non-issue for me. I dont' attend many live shows. I'll settle for a great studio album.

 

[PhilsFan]

If someone isn't entertained just because they played Hawkmoon 269 instead of One, then fuck that guy. U2 shouldn't care about him.

 

[ozeeko]

If someone isn't entertained just because they played Hawkmoon 269 instead of One, then fuck that guy. U2 shouldn't care about him.

I agree. They shouldn't.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

You never saw them?

No . It's a goal of mine to someday change that.

I understand your point, PhilsFan, and don't necessarily disagree, but if you want to get more of a fanbase, sometimes that means playing to people outside your niche. U2 isn't really a "cult" band, anyway. If they were, I'd understand the argument more.

It seems no matter what U2 does, though, they'll never be able to please everybody all the time, and I do think the band sometimes forgets that. Eh, well.

Angela

 

[65980]

...if you want to get more of a fanbase, sometimes that means playing to people outside your niche.

I think this is the thing that many of us don't get. Specifically, WHY would they continue to want "more" of an fanbase? Totally understandable "please the masses" attitude back in the 80s when they were on the rise, and the 2000-2001 "comeback" was also a crowd-pleaser, and sort-of understandably so. Okay, at that point, they've been the world's biggest group for 20 years and have entered middle-age. What's left to prove? At that point, I say just worry about the music and forget about the sales figures and the concert attendance.

U2 isn't really a "cult" band, anyway.

Heh... sentence of the year!

It seems no matter what U2 does, though, they'll never be able to please everybody all the time, and I do think the band sometimes forgets that.

You are exactly right. In the case of the 2008-2010 album + tour, they seem to have tried really hard (much too hard, I would argue) to cover all bases and please both pop radio and their more critical fans. With the result that they satisfied neither. They would have been better to just put out the Rubin stuff ASAP, or just go full-on with a 100% weird, Fez/Morrocan influenced album of ethereal ambient music.

I say give up on trying to have more gigantic, home-run, world-beating albums and tours. It's extremely unlikely that they'll ever galvanize the masses again as they did in 1987 or 1992 (or, indeed, that anyone will), and if they never do, their legacy will lose absolutely nothing. However, their legacy will lose a lot if they continue trying to sell cheesy songs to MTV in a bid to win over yet another generation of teens.