Interesting interview w/ Bono from 2005

[Catman]

Transcript of Bono interview - chicagotribune.com

I had never read this before, but thought it an interesting read. For those who think U2 "lost the plot" with ATYCLB, and especially HTDAAB, this is for you.

This is the kind of interview I expected from Pitchfork around the time of NLOTH's release (but was sorely disappointed with their run-of-the-mill questions). Personally, I enjoy ATYCLB, find HTDAAB to be somewhat tepid, and think NLOTH is a mixed bag (a sort of incomplete thought with the awkward middle section), but nevertheless a step (that should've been a leap) in the right direction.


...And on a side note, whilst searching for other interviews in a similar fashion, I found this...

The Bono Interview - Right Wing News (Conservative News and Views)

Should've turned away after reading "Right Wing News." I continued reading anyway to find the funny. It never came

 

[65980]

Thanks, Catman. I remember this interview...

Bono: "There's this poverty of ambition, in terms of what rock people will do to promote their work. That's a critical issue to me."

100% disagree with Bono. I can understand the scramble in youth to establish a career, a long-term record contract, and artistic freedom, as well as a large fanbase to draw on. But once those things are established (as they were, in U2's case, by 1985), I do not like to see credible rock bands I admire spending money and energy to sell themselves to the lowest common denominator audience.

Obviously it's a slippery slope, and U2 have walked it better than most... but f***, I do get tired of their endless self promotion. It's like... how much adulation do you need?

 

[65980]

What's disturbing about this interview is that Bono is clearly positing "ambition" as the equivalent of "popular" and "money-making."

For example: "Oasis came around and they weeded out progressive rock-itis, and brought ambition back to songwriting."

Er... no. What Oasis did was complete the transition from indie-guitar bands of the 80s like The Smiths and Stone Roses to mainstream pop level, by dumbing it down and making it easily accessible to radio and non-critical fans. That's fine, but it's hardly "songwriting ambition". It's more like the opposite -- it's songwriting limitation.

 

[BVS]

 

[kingofsorrow]

eh?

 

[last unicorn]

I think you thoroughly misunderstand what "ambition" can be. Ambition is only a negative thing if you turn it into something negative. Personally, I wouldn't want to be fan of a band without ambition. I don't see how Bono is refering to only making money in any of the interviews, it's the way some fans who are hopelessly stuck in the past are interpreting his work. I want to see my band be ambitious and move forward. Yes, artistical ambition is the most important thing, but that doesn't mean they have to be stupid when it comes to promotion and such. I agree with Bono and think he's the driving force behind U2 still wanting to have a carreer, which is not a bad thing.

 

[LemonMelon]

It is indeed possible for Bono to make a moronic statement. Huh.

I think you thoroughly misunderstand what "ambition" can be. Ambition is only a negative thing if you turn it into something negative. Personally, I wouldn't want to be fan of a band without ambition. I don't see how Bono is refering to only making money in any of the interviews, it's the way some fans who are hopelessly stuck in the past are interpreting his work. I want to see my band be ambitious and move forward. Yes, artistical ambition is the most important thing, but that doesn't mean they have to be stupid when it comes to promotion and such. I agree with Bono and think he's the driving force behind U2 still wanting to have a carreer, which is not a bad thing.

Never mind, I guess not.

That being said, in spite of the occasional gaffe, I thought this was a terrific interview. Biting, went straight to the tough questions, and Bono presented his viewpoint competently. It was good stuff. Nice to see that U2 responded to the "not enough Pop" complaint by playing Discotheque in Chicago a matter of months later.

 

[An Cat Gav]

What's disturbing about this interview is that Bono is clearly positing "ambition" as the equivalent of "popular" and "money-making."

For example: "Oasis came around and they weeded out progressive rock-itis, and brought ambition back to songwriting."

Er... no. What Oasis did was complete the transition from indie-guitar bands of the 80s like The Smiths and Stone Roses to mainstream pop level, by dumbing it down and making it easily accessible to radio and non-critical fans. That's fine, but it's hardly "songwriting ambition". It's more like the opposite -- it's songwriting limitation.

That's a pretty great summing up of Oasis.

 

[U2387]

Thanks, Catman. I remember this interview...

Bono: "There's this poverty of ambition, in terms of what rock people will do to promote their work. That's a critical issue to me."

100% disagree with Bono. I can understand the scramble in youth to establish a career, a long-term record contract, and artistic freedom, as well as a large fanbase to draw on. But once those things are established (as they were, in U2's case, by 1985), I do not like to see credible rock bands I admire spending money and energy to sell themselves to the lowest common denominator audience.

Obviously it's a slippery slope, and U2 have walked it better than most... but f***, I do get tired of their endless self promotion. It's like... how much adulation do you need?

I agree, it is a slippery slope and U2 has walked it well.

However, there is no fine line or any kind of line really that should not be crossed when it comes to ambition.

There are 2 kinds of artists, ambitious and irrelevant!

Would you rather U2 rest on past success and not try and promote any new material after 1985?

Just like Larry said in an interview with Jim Derogatis of Chicago Tribune in 2005, no i-pod commercial or any such promotion is selling out in the least bit, as soon as you sign on the dotted line for your first record deal, your job is to make money for your music. Anything that advances that is not selling out. I-Pods are of course more popular with the Britney dumbed down mass appeal consumers than they are with the sophisticated music listeners, but why not try and break that mold? I think U2 helped do it, in fact. Today, a Frank Sinatra or classical music fan or Smiths fan is as likely to have an i-pod as the teeny bopper at the Jonas Brothers show.

I agree, there is of course a lowest common denominator, mass idiocy type market, one need only look at Britney Spears, the Jonas Brothers, and Sarah Palin! However, U2 has not dumbed down to reach them by any means! ATYCLB and Bomb may be safe for U2 artistically, may not be as sonically diverse or experimental or ambitious in sound as we know U2 can be, but they are by no means albums that are dumbed down specifically for mass appeal.

What on the radio sounded like Beautiful Day in 2000?

What on the radio sounded like Vertigo in 2004?

Going back to recognizable as U2 songwriting may be boring for us as fans, but it is not dumbing down to the masses. It is simply using a model that first gained recognition precisely because it broke the mold and did not dumb down!

 

[LemonMelon]

It's not U2's promotion itself that bothers me, nor Bono's defense of it. It's his moronic assertion that bands who are unwilling to promote their records heavily and bend over backwards to be heard are lazy that I find closed-minded (and ironically elitist). Also, Bono's examples of brilliant songwriters and ideal representations of the zeitgeist (Oasis and Kings of Leon, respectively) are just terrible. But that's more to taste than anything, I guess.

Outside of that, however, I respect Bono's appreciation for the foundation of pop music: songwriting and arrangement. Taking a verse and chorus, switching their roles, finding that missing piece to bring it all together...it's a science that someone like me who quite often goes through spells where inspiration just isn't in the cards -- days where God isn't going to walk through the room -- can appreciate. However, U2 had more than thoroughly explored that at the time this interview had been conducted, and it's very good that they chose to apply the skills they had acquired during this time to more daring sonic territory on NLOTH.

 

[Saracene]

It's not U2's promotion itself that bothers me, nor Bono's defense of it. It's his moronic assertion that bands who are unwilling to promote their records heavily and bend over backwards to be heard are lazy that I find closed-minded (and ironically elitist).

I don't think I've seen the word "lazy" anywhere in that interview. Or anything that implies that Bono thinks that this unwillingness has anything to do with laziness.

I did roll my eyes somewhat at Bono calling progressive rock "the enemy".

 

[The Sad Punk]

I cheered when he said that nu-metal artists should hep up on cyanide pills, I groaned for most of the rest of it. But I didn't become a U2 fan to agree with their entire thought process. Wish there were more interviews like this, that's for sure.

 

[65980]

Good post, U2387.

Would you rather U2 rest on past success and not try and promote any new material after 1985?

No, I understand that since 1985 they've been a "big" group (an enormous one since 1987) with millions of fans and a major-label record contract, with obligations to fulfill. And I think that's great -- U2 is one of the few groups that can handle smoothly the pressures that go with being enormous. I do think, however, that there's a difference between, say, letting your record company handle most of the promotion, turning up and touring, doing the odd interview, etc.,etc, and being on David Letterman for an entire week while preparing to tour with the most expensive and environmentally destructive tour apparatus ever made.

Anything that advances [their record] is not selling out.

Okay, be fair to me -- I never used the term "selling out". I agree that any band with a contract is obligated to try to sell, so it's an absurd term. But since you brought it up... what if Larry dressed up in a chicken suit to advertise their latest single on a cable TV commerical in St. Louis? Maybe it's not selling out, but would it be (a) in good taste, and (b) in the spirit of rock'n'roll and artist pursuits in general? Likewise, to use a very real example, what if tomorrow you heard "With or Without You" in a Wal-Mart commercial on TV, just as the band release a new 80s' hits compilation? You're saying you'd be okay with that?

I think there are some lines that have to be drawn.

I-Pods are of course more popular with the Britney dumbed down mass appeal consumers than they are with the sophisticated music listeners, but why not try and break that mold? I think U2 helped do it, in fact. Today, a Frank Sinatra or classical music fan or Smiths fan is as likely to have an i-pod as the teeny bopper at the Jonas Brothers show.

I completely agree. Again, I never mentioned the iPod thing at all -- in fact, I've never even seen the iPod ad.

I agree, there is of course a lowest common denominator, mass idiocy type market, one need only look at Britney Spears, the Jonas Brothers, and Sarah Palin! However, U2 has not dumbed down to reach them by any means!

(Okay, this is a big unfair since they're all Irish... but still, you didn't see Menudo in the "All I Want is You" video.)

Going back to recognizable as U2 songwriting may be boring for us as fans, but it is not dumbing down to the masses. It is simply using a model that first gained recognition precisely because it broke the mold and did not dumb down!

My criticisms were solely about their approach to marketing themselves, not to the music (which is obviously the more important thing). I have no issue with their new music, all of which I think is great. Indeed, I consider Atomic Bomb to be their 4th best LP ever. (Despite what certain persons on this thread are ignorantly implying -- and I'm not referring to U2387 -- I do not revere everything old-U2 at the expense of new-U2.)

Let me refine my comments to say that I have nothing against ambition. I do think, however, that there is fine line between tasteful ambition and tasteless... and I think Bono's comments in that 5-year-old interview are bordering on the latter.

 

[65980]

Good post, U2387.

Would you rather U2 rest on past success and not try and promote any new material after 1985?

No, I understand that since 1985 they've been a "big" group (an enormous one since 1987) with millions of fans and a major-label record contract, with obligations to fulfill. And I think that's great -- U2 is one of the few groups that can handle smoothly the pressures that go with being enormous. I do think, however, that there's a difference between, say, letting your record company handle most of the promotion, turning up and touring, doing the odd interview, etc.,etc, and being on David Letterman for an entire week while preparing to tour with the most expensive and environmentally destructive tour apparatus ever made.

Anything that advances [their record] is not selling out.

Okay, be fair to me -- I never used the term "selling out". I agree that any band with a contract is obligated to try to sell, so it's an absurd term. But since you brought it up... what if Larry dressed up in a chicken suit to advertise their latest single on a cable TV commerical in St. Louis? Maybe it's not selling out, but would it be (a) in good taste, and (b) in the spirit of rock'n'roll and artist pursuits in general? Likewise, to use a very real example, what if tomorrow you heard "With or Without You" in a Wal-Mart commercial on TV, just as the band release a new 80s' hits compilation? You're saying you'd be okay with that?

I think there are some lines that have to be drawn.

I-Pods are of course more popular with the Britney dumbed down mass appeal consumers than they are with the sophisticated music listeners, but why not try and break that mold? I think U2 helped do it, in fact. Today, a Frank Sinatra or classical music fan or Smiths fan is as likely to have an i-pod as the teeny bopper at the Jonas Brothers show.

I completely agree. Again, I never mentioned the iPod thing at all -- in fact, I've never even seen the iPod ad.

I agree, there is of course a lowest common denominator, mass idiocy type market, one need only look at Britney Spears, the Jonas Brothers, and Sarah Palin! However, U2 has not dumbed down to reach them by any means!

(Okay, this is a big unfair since they're all Irish... but still, you didn't see Menudo in the "All I Want is You" video.)

Going back to recognizable as U2 songwriting may be boring for us as fans, but it is not dumbing down to the masses. It is simply using a model that first gained recognition precisely because it broke the mold and did not dumb down!

My criticisms were solely about their approach to marketing themselves, not to the music (which is obviously the more important thing). I have no issue with their new music, all of which I think is great. Indeed, I consider Atomic Bomb to be their 4th best LP ever. (Despite what certain persons on this thread are ignorantly implying -- and I'm not referring to U2387 -- I do not revere everything old-U2 at the expense of new-U2.)

Let me refine my comments to say that I have nothing against ambition. I do think, however, that there is fine line between tasteful ambition and tasteless... and I think Bono's comments in that 5-year-old interview are bordering on the latter.

 

[65980]

Sorry for the double-latte post.

 

[U2girl]

I don't think I've seen the word "lazy" anywhere in that interview. Or anything that implies that Bono thinks that this unwillingness has anything to do with laziness.

It is possible for Interferencers to completely miss the point.

 

[U2387]

Good post, U2387.

Thank you, and yours as well!

No, I understand that since 1985 they've been a "big" group (an enormous one since 1987) with millions of fans and a major-label record contract, with obligations to fulfill. And I think that's great -- U2 is one of the few groups that can handle smoothly the pressures that go with being enormous. I do think, however, that there's a difference between, say, letting your record company handle most of the promotion, turning up and touring, doing the odd interview, etc.,etc, and being on David Letterman for an entire week while preparing to tour with the most expensive and environmentally destructive tour apparatus ever made.

At the risk of sounding like U2's publicity department, they did purchase Carbon offsets for the tour, and as for expensive, they are paying for it, not taxpayers!

What is wrong with Letterman? I see nothing? It may have not been enough to promote the album(they needed an innovative method in there too) but going on a show, doing interviews and playing your music straight like you have always been doing does not strike me as particularly offensive to my taste buds.

We just are developing a disagreement when it comes to taster here, 65980, and that is quite fine, and exactly what discussion here is all about.

I am not saying you are suggesting this, but the whole idea that our goals with respect to the environment have to be in conflict with our dreams to think bigger, build our dream, etc is not a very sound one. If we all stopped driving cars and using computers, global warming would be cut down, but at what expense to our standard of living/innovation?

Okay, be fair to me -- I never used the term "selling out". I agree that any band with a contract is obligated to try to sell, so it's an absurd term. But since you brought it up... what if Larry dressed up in a chicken suit to advertise their latest single on a cable TV commerical in St. Louis? Maybe it's not selling out, but would it be (a) in good taste, and (b) in the spirit of rock'n'roll and artist pursuits in general? Likewise, to use a very real example, what if tomorrow you heard "With or Without You" in a Wal-Mart commercial on TV, just as the band release a new 80s' hits compilation? You're saying you'd be okay with that?

I was responding to the suggestion that DeRogatis made that Larry replied to. I thought I made that clear, and if not, I do apologize. I try and be nothing if not fair!

Would Larry the Chicken meet your good taste or spirit of rock and roll artists criteria? NO, not in my book. However, Larry is still right and Derogatis still wrong.

Would I be ok with WOWY in the Wal Mart Commerical? No, I probably would not like it, but again, not selling out like Deroag claimed!

I think there are some lines that have to be drawn.

Lines to be drawn in terms of we the fans taking them seriously and thinking it is a good idea? If that, then ABSOLUTELY DAMN RIGHT.

I just think U2 is pretty damn good at drawing these lines themselves!

They have used their music for the World Cup(good, inspirational, keep moving up, bring people together in the spirit of fellowship and competition).

Blackberry and I-Pods: Good by me, ways to advance U2 and especially Bono's strong belief that there can exist new mediums of releasing and communicating music to the portable 21st century masses while still compensating the artists.

Point being, though I can't read minds, I highly doubt chicken Larry or Wal Mart WOWY would be in line with U2's own tastes!

(Okay, this is a big unfair since they're all Irish... but still, you didn't see Menudo in the "All I Want is You" video.)

Ok, I saw All I Want Is You video many times. I realize the comparison you are making! However, I was talking about U2 compromising their actual work to meet the tastes of this market.

I guess I see the video as part of the actual work and not as straight marketing in the Wal Mart sense. If U2 wants to have whoever they want or whatever theme they want in their videos, fine by me, so long as the Jonas Brothers are not singing and pretending to play instruments in them!

Videos are supposed to have an element of cheese or mass appeal or what have you in them.

My criticisms were solely about their approach to marketing themselves, not to the music (which is obviously the more important thing). I have no issue with their new music, all of which I think is great. Indeed, I consider Atomic Bomb to be their 4th best LP ever. (Despite what certain persons on this thread are ignorantly implying -- and I'm not referring to U2387 -- I do not revere everything old-U2 at the expense of new-U2.)

Let me refine my comments to say that I have nothing against ambition. I do think, however, that there is fine line between tasteful ambition and tasteless... and I think Bono's comments in that 5-year-old interview are bordering on the latter.

No problems at all! I understand, and I could tell you were talking about marketing as opposed to the material itself.

I just addressed Derogoatis and the claims of some others that U2's marketing compromises the artistic integrity of their work, and maybe should not have done it with your posts quoted!

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

It's not U2's promotion itself that bothers me, nor Bono's defense of it. It's his moronic assertion that bands who are unwilling to promote their records heavily and bend over backwards to be heard are lazy that I find closed-minded (and ironically elitist).

I think what he's trying to get at is that he just wishes that bands seemed like they had more fun, like they weren't so worried about looking "cool" and actually enjoyed getting out there. 'Cause, like it or not, you can't really have a career if nobody hears your music.

I really, really hate the whole "selling out" concept. Having a hit means you've "sold out". Playing big stadiums means you've "sold out". Please. So does that mean the Beatles "sold out" when they played Shea Stadium? Does that mean the Temptations or the Beach Boys or groups like that "sold out" when their songs hit the top 40 back in the '60s? Last I checked, those artists are some of the most beloved to this day. And I'd like to know why corporate sponsorship is an evil thing when related to a band, but when it's a sports figure endorsing something, or a sporting event endorsing something, I never hear this same argument. Certainly I don't want a band to care only about money and popularity and nothing else-I do get some of the wariness people have about popularity, absolutely. But there's nothing wrong with having hits or playing big shows, and I really don't get why that bothers some people so much.

Besides that, the public needs to make up its mind. All the time I hear people complain about how "there's no good music out there anymore", how it's all plastic crappy teenybopper stuff ('cause it's not like we don't get that every decade, right?). Then when somebody like a Radiohead or a U2 or whoever, good bands like that, does start getting airplay, "Oh, they've gone mainstream, they're too commercial, they've sold out." So do you want good music on the radio or not?

Also, my favorite U2 album is Pop, and yet I quite like their albums from this past decade, too, No Line On The Horizon being my favorite of the three. I think it's entirely possible to like both eras.

Meh. Anywho, fascinating article, thanks for sharing it. Very intense, detailed discussion and debate between the two, I liked that.

Angela

 

[LemonMelon]

I really, really hate the whole "selling out" concept.

As do I.

On the other hand, looking down on groups for not following the same promotional paths as your own band is essentially the same thing, it just has yet to become a cliche. Drawing attention to promotional methods further distracts (and detracts) from the music, and that should be the #1 priority, no? I applaud the hip-hop acts Bono is drawing inspiration from for their marketing skills, but that doesn't make me respect their artistry. Bono, however, comes uncomfortably close to paralleling the two throughout this interview, and that really bothers me. Oasis and Nirvana didn't write better music because a lot of people partook of it (although the music they did make -- however well-crafted -- became more culturally significant for it, for better or worse). He sounds like the sort of man who argues on the populist side of the "sales = quality" debate.

And yeah, I apologize, I re-read that and didn't notice anything about "laziness" per se. It was late.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

As do I.

On the other hand, looking down on groups for not following the same promotional paths as your own band is essentially the same thing, it just has yet to become a cliche. Drawing attention to promotional methods further distracts (and detracts) from the music, and that should be the #1 priority, no?

A fair point. There is indeed something to be said for the theory that if something/someone needs to be marketed to death, the odds are quite good that the product doesn't really speak well for itself. And certainly every band has the right to decide for itself how they wish to market their music and image and whatever else. Some bands just aren't interested in being big names, some are, and neither should be criticized for their aspirations.

I applaud the hip-hop acts Bono is drawing inspiration from for their marketing skills, but that doesn't make me respect their artistry. Bono, however, comes uncomfortably close to paralleling the two throughout this interview, and that really bothers me. Oasis and Nirvana didn't write better music because a lot of people partook of it (although the music they did make -- however well-crafted -- became more culturally significant for it, for better or worse). He sounds like the sort of man who argues on the populist side of the "sales = quality" debate.

I think he's trying, but maybe not quite wording it properly, to say that people who are inventive in their marketing skills are also more likely to be inventive in terms of their creativity. And I can see where that could be true. You need a sharp mind in either field, and if you can use that sharp mind in both fields at once, well... You may not personally like the product that results in either field, but that doesn't automatically mean it's worthless.

I can't really comment on Oasis or Nirvana in terms of their popularity as compared to the music they made before and after they achieved it, as I mainly just know their more familiar songs (I like what I have heard from both bands, too. Don't know if that makes anyone's point on either side, though).

And yeah, I apologize, I re-read that and didn't notice anything about "laziness" per se. It was late.

It's cool . Everyone's done that-lord knows I have.

Angela

 

[monsieur fly]

As a fan of everything U2 did and stood for in the 1990s, the first interview is painful. In one deadly paragraph, Kot sums it up-

"You're killing me now. I thought those '90s albums were great. I didn't understand "Achtung Baby" right away. But after seeing the tour, I realized it was your best album. I still feel that way. And I loved "Zooropa" in that way, and "Passengers." I even liked "Pop." To me, you guys were showing us how it should be done. You were [screwing] with our heads and making great music. You were doing those weird ballads from "Pop" as an encore at Soldier Field [in 1997]. I loved that you were so far out on a limb with saw in hand, and you were trying things, pushing things. And now you never play songs from those albums anymore. What happened?"

 

[Earnie Shavers]

The thing I feel most strongly about that interview is that I wish there were more of them, or why isn't there more of them? Really, 95% of U2 (or Bono) interviews aren't worth reading. Same questions, same answers, usually the same fluff. It was good to see him/them get challenged a bit, from a non-blind cheerleader angle. I don't mean it has to be aggressive and negative questioning or challenging, but more taking him/them out of a cliche quote comfort zone please.

But on this one - I agree with a lot of the above. I personally detest any use of the term "sell out" and in the overwhelming majority of cases, it's use is wildly off base and utterly ridiculous. But I do think Bono was being really quite condescending there, and maybe only about a third (or less) of his defense of their actions, and his larger argument, rang true with me, the other two thirds had me walking outside to where I'd already thrown HTDAAB out an open window, and kicking it further down the street.

 

[Catman]

Typically I think Bono is a cool guy and all, but when he said, ""Vertigo" is actually quite a gem, contrary to what you say...," he comes across as kind of a dick. I dunno, maybe he's just not used to interviews where the guy/ gal on the other end doesn't truckle so easily. But I'm certainly glad he stepped out of his comfort zone - clearly he believes in the band's output within the past decade and is more than willing to argue in its favor.

...makes me wish he was this defensive about POP, though...

 

[djerdap]

Great interview, although I tend to disagree with most of what Bono has to say. What's this beef against progressive rock? I can't seem to realize what his definiton of that is, considering he believes that Oasis, of all bands, weeded it out. Huh? And calling Oasis' songwriting "ambitious" is kinda ridiculous, really.

The most cringe-worthy statement, that of the iPod being the greatest invention since the electric guitar, is also the most telling one, since Bono, despite making his most honest and open-minded interview ever, is still somewhat of a businessman. That line is pure advertising, no matter how biased and thrilled with the concept at that time Bono seemed to be, and especially ironic since they have Blackberry now to sponsor their tour, and not a mention of Steve Jobs since that time.

I love the fact that his interpretation of Pop and what Pop could have been is the opposite of my thinking of it. This line for example...

"An album changes the mood of a summer when you walk out of a pub and you have those songs in your head. And you hear them coming from a car, an open window. It changes the mood of the season."

I don't think of Pop while being in the pub or hear it coming from a car. It's an album that relates to the individual more than any other U2 record, and it's far from being a seasonal mood changer. It's much deeper than that. Pop is for me best while listening to it alone in an isolated, dark bedroom, after midnight, appreciating the textures and the rawness of it, since songs like Velvet Dress, Gone, Please or Wake Up Dead Man work perfectly with that tangible darkness that surrounds them. Is Bono grasping the idea that this is their most desperate and intimate record to date? It's not their Chemical Brothers or Peter Gabriel record, it's their Closer. Hell, it's their Nebraska (many of you will find this comparison hard to swallow, but the aforementioned two albums work for me in the same atmosphere as Pop is).

On the other hand, the line about wanting to hear Radiohead on the radio to inspire 14-year-olds just as John Lennon inspired him is... well, inspiring, really. But I think that Bono just can't seem to acknowledge the fact that people nowadays who listen to the usual popular music don't want to get that much from music outside of the usual entertainment. And that's perfectly fine. Why U2 still tries to appeal to those masses does cause me some head-scratching , since there are so many other people, not just their fanbase, who do want to hear something more exciting from them, since the 90s showed they have a lot of potential for it.

 

[65980]

U2 are acutely aware (maybe too aware) of the difference in pop-music cultures between the UK and the USA (+ Canada). Generally speaking -- and yes, this is an over-generalization -- in Britain, bands are here-today / gone-tomorrow in terms of critical respect and relevance, whereas in North America bands need to do a hard-slog for years and years to get anywhere, and then the more they tour and stay in their audience's safety-zone, the bigger they get.

When U2 started, they of course went from Ireland to Britain, but -- according to what they've said, and I believe it -- were not really welcomed into the post-punk scene very well. On the contrary, they were welcomed with wide-open, less critical arms in America.

They've talked countless times about the "cool"-respect factor in the British music scene, and as we all know U2 are anything but cool. I really think they have an ingrained respect for popular artists in general, and for artists who bypass "coolness" and critical credibility and just go for the jugular -- mass popularity. U2 are masters of the grand gesture, and bands who've opened for them often say that U2's advice to them is to "not be afraid of success" and to go for broke.

As much as I would sometimes like them to forget about their sales figures and how much influence they have over younger record buyers, it just isn't going to happen.

 

[discothequeLP]

What's disturbing about this interview is that Bono is clearly positing "ambition" as the equivalent of "popular" and "money-making."

For example: "Oasis came around and they weeded out progressive rock-itis, and brought ambition back to songwriting."

Er... no. What Oasis did was complete the transition from indie-guitar bands of the 80s like The Smiths and Stone Roses to mainstream pop level, by dumbing it down and making it easily accessible to radio and non-critical fans. That's fine, but it's hardly "songwriting ambition". It's more like the opposite -- it's songwriting limitation.

i think i agree with Bono on this one. of all the 90s rock bands with the big, distorted/grungy sound, Oasis was by far the best. I've struggled to find songwriting as good as Noel Gallagher's in any decade. 'simple', 'mainstream', and 'ambitious' are not mutually exclusive. part of the genius of Oasis was taking the the most basic chord progressions and songs and delivering them better than any other 90s band. i've never heard any 'critical' fan doubt the quality of Oasis in the 90s. as far as i know it's not even a topic of debate.

 

[monsieur fly]

I wonder if Bono has changed his mind since that interview. I hope has because otherwise the chances of hearing Pop material this year are going to be pretty damn small.

 

[U2387]

As a fan of everything U2 did and stood for in the 1990s, the first interview is painful. In one deadly paragraph, Kot sums it up-

This is a tough one here.

Though it may be painful to you and I that LNOE or Gone or Please has not been tried again with the claw, does that mean Kot "summed it all up."

In a word, no.

But read on.

Couldn't Kot just have easily made the following statement and had it be seen as equally valid?

"To me, you guys were showing us how it should be done. You were [screwing] with our heads and making great music. You were doing those weird ballads from Joshua Tree as an encore in Sun Devil Stadium."

What is the difference?

Velvet Dress was the Pop ballad in the encore in stadiums.(sometimes Wake Up Dead Man)

WOWY was the JT ballad in the encore at stadiums, in a time where hair bands and Michael Jackson dominated the radio!(sometimes running to standstill popped up in the encore!)

What if he had said this, hypothetically?

"You guys were really screwing with our heads in 1984. I dig it. Seriously. Taking the rock world by storm like the Who and Led Zep and then going with this abstract, ambient album with producers that most rock people scoffed at. Playing "The Unforgettable Fire" or "MLK" or "Indian Summer Sky" in arenas after you had just got the U2 sound established to a wide audience with "Under A Blood Red Sky." Talk about out on a limb, you were so NOT killing me back then!! You guys didn't care, you were just making good music!!"

Is he saying anything different, really?

Now for what he actually said:

"You're killing me now. I thought those '90s albums were great. I didn't understand "Achtung Baby" right away. But after seeing the tour, I realized it was your best album. I still feel that way. And I loved "Zooropa" in that way, and "Passengers." I even liked "Pop." And now you never play songs from those albums anymore. What happened?"

I realize he is talking about Zooropa, Passengers and Pop more when it comes to live performances.

Still, it does not change the fact that he says Achtung Baby is his favorite and puts it in the same category with the other 3 in asking "what happened" with regards to playing these songs!

What happened, Kot?

I'll tell him:

AB could quite possibly be the favorite album of all 4 U2 members. So agreement with Kot to start out with!

AB has consistently been the best represented non current album since it came out, regardless of the nature of the tour- stadium, arena, big vs intimate, political(Vertigo) vs back to basics(Elevation) vs space ship world(360).

Passengers has gotten time periods on tour this decade where Miss Sarajevo was a regular. 360 gave YBR a hand full or more performances. What more does this guy expect from an obscure side project that most people do not consider a real U2 album(not getting into that debate)? I would submit it is pretty remarkable anything from this got touched in live performances in the 2000s!

Zooropa has Bono's self proclaimed favorite song on it(Stay), so he could not have been "killing" Kot too badly! Vertigo tour saw a good amount of First Time, Elevation had its fair share of Stay, Vertigo had a "Daddy pay" snippet. Again, what more does Kot want for an album that is not really seen by the public at large as anything more than an AB supplement!

Pop- Yes, we need more of it on 360, and its not nearly as non resonating/whatever as U2 seems to think it is. In fact, it has aged quite well. Still, U2 gave Gone, Discotheque and Staring At The Sun plenty of face time on Elevation. Wake Up Dead Man got some love as well. Please has been spoken of often since its release and has often been snippeted this decade. Discotheque Vertigo tour of course and also the MOFO rehearsals.

U2 has not forgotten about any of this material.

Kot was speaking of Elevation and Vertigo when he said "anymore" with respect to 90s albums.

A list for him for those 2 tours:
Zoo Station *
The Fly
Real Thing
One
Until The End of the World
Mysterious Ways
Wild Horses
Ultraviolet*
Discotheque
Wake Up Dead Man*
Staring At The Sun
The First Time*
Stay
Miss Sarajevo*
Your Blue Room*

*indicates big surprise at the time!

I am all for U2 getting asked non softball, real questions about their work, they are more than capable of handling them.

This particular segment of the interview, though interesting, appears to have one element:

Kot is taking his personal preference for all things 90s U2 and saying that U2 being out on a limb, screwing with people's heads, breaking the mold and making great music only existed in this time period because he said so.

Using your personal opinion of what is their best work and your personal set list wish list as the only legitimate way to be bold and out on a limb is disingenuous, self serving and more than a bit arrogant!

This is especially true when you consider U2 has not really even neglected the 90s in the Elevation/Vertigo set lists as he claimed!

PLEASE, U2 has broken the mold plenty of times that are not mentioned by Kot just because they obviously do not advance his personal preference for the 90s material.

 

[monsieur fly]

This is a tough one here.

Kot is taking his personal preference for all things 90s U2 and saying that U2 being out on a limb, screwing with people's heads, breaking the mold and making great music only existed in this time period because he said so.

Using your personal opinion of what is their best work and your personal set list wish list as the only legitimate way to be bold and out on a limb is disingenuous, self serving and more than a bit arrogant!

This is especially true when you consider U2 has not really even neglected the 90s in the Elevation/Vertigo set lists as he claimed!

PLEASE, U2 has broken the mold plenty of times that are not mentioned by Kot just because they obviously do not advance his personal preference for the 90s material.

Well, again, there is a lot I can agree with here. Like many 90s fans, I love The Unforgettable Fire because it is experimental so I agree that U2 broke the mould before the 90s too. I also accept that U2 hasn't overlooked Achtung Baby in its setlists but AB is very popular with both critics and public. It would have been outrageous for U2 not to played AB songs on subsequent tours. My gripe is the lack of songs from Zooropa and Pop on the last three tours. Indeed, even when they do play some, they either drop them very quickly (Discotheque in 2005, Mofo soundchecked but not tried) or offer conservative renditions (Stay, and The First Time). The really 'out there' songs like Mofo, Numb and Zooropa continue to be ignored.

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

 

[rexstardust]

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 was born/to sing whatever song you wanted me to...
except for those that Kot
would like to hear
Cuz he just wants
songs that only he likes
oh oh... oooooh oh oh oh

Only Kot,
Only Kot
Should write the set list

And only Kot
Only Kot
Will leave the audience p*ssed"

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