Excerpt from the new RS article, "U2: Hymns For the Future" about "Winter" vs Singles

[chrissybaby]

I wonder if he'll work with them again?
I know a lot of this stuff is playful, but many a true word spoken in jest, apparently...

I found this genuinely hard to read...

Can't someone just steal Eno's MacBook for a few hours...

 

[Screwtape2]

"It's too long, it needs a bit of work," he says of "Winter." "But, you know, they won't spend time on it. They've spent months working on the ones that are supposed to be the radio singles. Months! This: played, put aside."

And it turns out Bono has strong feelings on the subject. "We grew up on the rock & roll 45," he says. "It is, in an evolutionary way that Brian should, but doesn't, appreciate, the Darwinian peak of the species. It is by far the most difficult thing to pull off, and it is the very life force of rock & roll: vitality, succinctness and catchiness, whether it's the Sex Pistols, Nirvana, the Pixies, the Beatles, the Who, the Rolling Stones. And when rock music forgets about the 45, it tends toward progressive rock, which is like a mold that grows on old, burned-out artists who've run out of ideas. We have a soundtrack/Pink Floyd side of our band, and it has to be balanced by fine songwriting. And it's an infuriating thing for me to see indie rock & roll give up the single to R&B and hip-hop.'"

on many levels. First off, Bono's line about progressive rock is one of the dumbest things he has ever said. I'm sorry but Bono doesn't know what he is talking about.

After hearing NLOTH I thought they were past this singles idea. It has been this line of thought that has made me dislike this decade for them so much. It always leaves me wondering what could have been for these albums...

 

[Slapnutz]

I'm not calling you a liar or anything

Yeah, I know. I was just kidding.

 

[MooMoo!]

on many levels. First off, Bono's line about progressive rock is one of the dumbest things he has ever said. I'm sorry but Bono doesn't know what he is talking about.

After hearing NLOTH I thought they were past this singles idea. It has been this line of thought that has made me dislike this decade for them so much. It always leaves me wondering what could have been for these albums...

Lets face it, nothing on NLOTH will stand a chance as a single.

 

[cjboog]

I don't think Bono should be the final word on what's good or bad based on popularity.

I think critics usually rave more over indie bands because they need the critical recognition. It creates a buzz. U2 were once an indie band, don't forget. Bono shouldn't forget his roots.

How many albums did the Velvet Underground sell? How about the Pixies? How much of a cultural impact did they have?

While I see what you're saying about indie artists needing the buzz and influential artists that didn't sell boatloads of albums, I agree with Bono that the real lifeblood of rock n' roll is Start Me Up, Born To Run, Where The Streets Have No Name, I Want To Hold Your Hand, etc. That's not to say that every popular rock song is great, but if all rock music is reduced to cultural obscurity, then the genre has really lost its power and timelessness.

There was a great video clip from 2004 I believe of an interview with the band talking about commercialism and wanted to get there music "out there".

Aha. Found it. Here's Bono's quote and I think it sums up what I'm trying to say about this...

"There's a culture of lies in white rock n' roll that you don't get in hip hop, you don't get in jazz or others areas. People won't own up to their ambitions. So they pretend, 'yah man, I'm just a punk rocker, all I love is the music.' Wrong. If you love your music, you're going to want to communicate it -- it's about communication. That's why you formed a band. No one forms a band -- if you want a private little experience, you can become a potter, and get a potter's wheel, go fuck off. So now, it's about getting your songs across without compromising your ideas. But in the end, it's about, how good are the songs?"

YouTube - U2 Dismantled Part 3 of 3

COMMUNICATION. What's the joy in communicating a great song to a room full of 5 people when you could have a stadium full of tens of thousands jumping and shouting for joy? Sure, there's lots of amazing music that doesn't penetrate the collective conscience and sell massively. But ultimately it's timeless songs like these that give rock music it's power and keep the whole idea of it from withering away into pottery.

YouTube - U2 Where The Streets Have No Name Live At Slane Castle

 

[ozeeko]

What's "ironic" (and perhaps the ultimate irony) is that AB had those very catchy singles, with big hooks - meaning those songs would drag the "pop kids" in. So while Bono's stating how they may lose some, those songs brought them in.

Your argument is that those AB tracks didn't sound like anything on the radio at the time. I accept that argument and concur. The same was true for "War" and JT.

Fast forward to 1997 - "Pop" had a few tracks similar to Prodigy and Chemical Bros. Could that have hurt the album? And one of the big singles sounded like a George Harrison song. Could that have hurt?

Come 2000, ATYCLB is released and while U2 claimed this was their attempt at making an album full of singles, once again, it sounded like nothing out there at the time. I was actually worried that "Beautiful Day" would never catch on because it was so different. Back then, Spears and N'Sync and other pop groups ruled the charts. U2 stood out.

In 2004, I recall an article where the Edge's daughter stated that nothing on HTDAAB sounded like what was on the radio. This is Edge's daughter - a girl/young lady "hip" with the new music.

So in both cases, U2 were able to repeat what they did with "War", JT and AB - they created hit songs that didn't sound like anything out there.

Now, in 2009, we have so many U2 copycats, it's almost hard to tell when U2 releases a new album! I've heard songs by Fallout Boy, The Killers, Kings of Leon, Snow Patrol, Franz Ferdinand, Coldplay and several others that could have easily been a U2 song.

As a result, I'm almost worried that U2 sounding like U2 might suddenly be a bad thing - they won't stand out, even though it's their own sound!

Nonetheless, when I heard NLOTH, nothing leapt out as a "big hit". There was no "gotcha" single. And I think that is what's keeping U2 fresh.

Yes, they want hits - but they aren't trying so hard to get a hit that they are sacrificing their sound or the quality of the music.

You may not like all the songs on NLOTH, and that's fine. I don't like all the songs on any U2 album, and that includes NLOTH as much as it does JT and AB. But to my ears, U2 have once again found a sound that's different from what's out there (well, as much as it can be given the number of bands emulating U2's style).

In other words, U2 do work on the hits - but they don't sacrifice who they are to get that hit.

I think the "lose the pop kids" comment was directed to the U2 fans who were disillusioned by their new approach, and couldn't buy the new image. The pop kids were the ones who couldn't look beyond the Joshua Tree era U2, the earnest sounding U2. They were the ones who wouldn't accept the change. I think this is what he means, and it has nothing to do with the poppy styles on AB.

Beautiful Day, while it does sound like a departure from the Zooropa/POP era, it still gives you that comforting U2 of old feeling. The first time i heard this song, i was driving down the road somewhere, and when the chorus hit i smiled and said aloud "the old U2 is back!" Granted, i didn't start to appreciate POP until probably a couple years after ATYCLB came out, plus not to mention my ears hadn't matured, i hadn't discovered a large varitey of music yet.

Were U2 always about writing hits? I don't doubt that they always had a feeling of which songs COULD become hits, but even then they were pretty unsure about it. I mean, their #1 hit song of all time, "With or Without You" wasn't even considered until Gavin Friday pleaded with them to release it. They were that blind to realizing what could be a hit. Remember, they didn't even have a huge blockbuster hit song until the JT.

The next part is speculation:

These days, it feels like U2 are going out of their way to write hits. It's a different approach. Instead of just jamming with the music and following it to its logical conclusion, they second guess what can be a radio hit. I get that with the songs off Bomb, and i get that with acouple of the songs off NLOTH. It's like they have a U2-ometer that measures the levels in a U2 hit song- chimy Edge guitar, optimistic reassuring Bono vocals, a disposable riff, sloganeering lyrics, mention God, say something a little silly, now something a little serious to balance it, a repetitive hook tailor made for stadiums to sing along to...it just comes off as so studied. And it always has the feeling of "don't worry, everything's gonna be alright, as long as we stand up for our love, get our boots on, go crazy tonight, see the windows in the sky, walk on, and shout it, don't be shy about it."

 

[bcrt2000]

Aha. Found it. Here's Bono's quote and I think it sums up what I'm trying to say about this...

"There's a culture of lies in white rock n' roll that you don't get in hip hop, you don't get in jazz or others areas. People won't own up to their ambitions. So they pretend, 'yah man, I'm just a punk rocker, all I love is the music.' Wrong. If you love your music, you're going to want to communicate it -- it's about communication. That's why you formed a band. No one forms a band -- if you want a private little experience, you can become a potter, and get a potter's wheel, go fuck off. So now, it's about getting your songs across without compromising your ideas. But in the end, it's about, how good are the songs?"

YouTube - U2 Dismantled Part 3 of 3

That and what Larry says about keeping it real in that clip are easily my favourite quotes from the band

 

[ozeeko]

While I see what you're saying about indie artists needing the buzz and influential artists that didn't sell boatloads of albums, I agree with Bono that the real lifeblood of rock n' roll is Start Me Up, Born To Run, Where The Streets Have No Name, I Want To Hold Your Hand, etc. That's not to say that every popular rock song is great, but if all rock music is reduced to cultural obscurity, then the genre has really lost its power and timelessness.

There was a great video clip from 2004 I believe of an interview with the band talking about commercialism and wanted to get there music "out there".

Aha. Found it. Here's Bono's quote and I think it sums up what I'm trying to say about this...

"There's a culture of lies in white rock n' roll that you don't get in hip hop, you don't get in jazz or others areas. People won't own up to their ambitions. So they pretend, 'yah man, I'm just a punk rocker, all I love is the music.' Wrong. If you love your music, you're going to want to communicate it -- it's about communication. That's why you formed a band. No one forms a band -- if you want a private little experience, you can become a potter, and get a potter's wheel, go fuck off. So now, it's about getting your songs across without compromising your ideas. But in the end, it's about, how good are the songs?"

[/url]

Not all bands appeal to a giant fanbase. Not all bands transcend the demographics. Some only appeal to a certain type of crowd. I mean, artists that would go out of their way to sabotage their success because of some punk-rock attitude is pretty stupid, but the fact remains, there's just a lot of bands that don't get the recognition because their music isn't that universal. Not every band can become U2. I think Bono should stop making comments like that, they seem kinda naive and condescending.

 

[lazarus]

These days, it feels like U2 are going out of their way to write hits. It's a different approach. Instead of just jamming with the music and following it to its logical conclusion, they second guess what can be a radio hit. I get that with the songs off Bomb, and i get that with acouple of the songs off NLOTH. It's like they have a U2-ometer that measures the levels in a U2 hit song- chimy Edge guitar, optimistic reassuring Bono vocals, a disposable riff, sloganeering lyrics, mention God, say something a little silly, now something a little serious to balance it, a repetitive hook tailor made for stadiums to sing along to...it just comes off as so studied. And it always has the feeling of "don't worry, everything's gonna be alright, as long as we stand up for our love, get our boots on, go crazy tonight, see the windows in the sky, walk on, and shout it, don't be shy about it."

Sadly, this harsh indictment rings uncomfortably true.

 

[bcrt2000]

These days, it feels like U2 are going out of their way to write hits.

I don't get this feeling at all. This album is not a radio friendly album at all. I let my brother listen to it and the first thing he said is that this album doesn't have the traditional stadium rock hooks that U2 albums have. And thats what I think when I listen to it too.

 

[U2girl]

The next part is speculation.

 

[cjboog]

Not all bands appeal to a giant fanbase. Not all bands transcend the demographics. Some only appeal to a certain type of crowd. I mean, artists that would go out of their way to sabotage their success because of some punk-rock attitude is pretty stupid, but the fact remains, there's just a lot of bands that don't get the recognition because their music isn't that universal. Not every band can become U2. I think Bono should stop making comments like that, they seem kinda naive and condescending.

He's not saying that they should change their music style so they appeal to a universal audience. He's saying that artists should stop pretending that they don't want to be successful. If you are only making music for yourself and you "only care about the music" then why even RELEASE an album to the general public? Why not just make it for you and listen to it by yourself in your own little private room? Because YOU WANT YOUR ART TO SUCCEED. Not every musical audience wants to be the next U2, but the mere fact that they are releasing music and selling it indicates that they want to succeed and communicate their art with an audience. That's what he's saying.

 

[ozeeko]

I don't get this feeling at all. This album is not a radio friendly album at all. I let my brother listen to it and the first thing he said is that this album doesn't have the traditional stadium rock hooks that U2 albums have. And thats what I think when I listen to it too.

Yea, you're right on about 8 of the tracks.

I was listening to the album this morning all the way thur, by the time i got halfway thru SUC i almost forgot what album i was listening to. When Fez started, i was like "oh yea, NLOTH, that's right" CT, SUC and Breathe are the 3 token U2 savior tracks that i was referring to, the ones that seem to be forced into something tailor made for the pop kids.

 

[ozeeko]

He's not saying that they should change their music style so they appeal to a universal audience. He's saying that artists should stop pretending that they don't want to be successful. If you are only making music for yourself and you "only care about the music" then why even RELEASE an album to the general public? Why not just make it for you and listen to it by yourself in your own little private room? Because YOU WANT YOUR ART TO SUCCEED. Not every musical audience wants to be the next U2, but the mere fact that they are releasing music and selling it indicates that they want to succeed and communicate their art with an audience. That's what he's saying.

Believe it or not, many musicians are content to exist under the radar. They don't want the Bono sized fame and all the other bullshit. Some are just in it to enjoy the music on the level they feel most comfortable with.

On the other hand, yea i agree the whole notion of selling out is fucking childish, that is unless the band in question truly does sell their soul for fame.

 

[lazarus]

Yea, you're right on about 8 of the tracks.

I was listening to the album this morning all the way thur, by the time i got halfway thru SUC i almost forgot what album i was listening to. When Fez started, i was like "oh yea, NLOTH, that's right" CT, SUC and Breathe are the 3 token U2 savior tracks that i was referring to, the ones that seem to be forced into something tailor made for the pop kids.

Breathe manages to at least have a bit more character in the rapid-fire vocal delivery of the verses. It may be calculated, but this one works for me.

The other songs you mentioned...belong on other albums. Like, the last two.

 

[Diemen]

You know, you've been targeting me snarkily since The 4400 thread and I think it's highly unprofessional that you maintain your mod status. You consistently object to things I say but never converse with me with any respect. You even mocked a review I wrote but never actually bothered to read it. I'm really sick of your general disposition. There's a way to disagree without being disagreeable; rhiannsu is a perfect example of a fair debater. It's not as obvious with you as it is others like U2Bonovoxsuperstar or dalton, but more subtle with you, but you know what I mean.

Case in point:

Why are you isolating/quoting me, when I was referring to the poster before me who said it best.

Anyway, I never said any such thing. I love music that conveys joy like some of The Cure's stuff. Pride is another great U2 song, but their "up" movement this last decade has sucked, and is manifested in Bono's phony action stances.

I'm isolating you because you're the only one ranting about how U2 have lost the plot, when you haven't even heard the new album.

 

[Slapnutz]

No Line... is one of the best 8-track albums I've heard in a long time.

 

[Dalton]

I think it's in everyone's best interest to know that Laz has a handlebar mustache and wears mesh hats.

 

[cjboog]

Believe it or not, many musicians are content to exist under the radar. They don't want the Bono sized fame and all the other bullshit. Some are just in it to enjoy the music on the level they feel most comfortable with.

On the other hand, yea i agree the whole notion of selling out is fucking childish, that is unless the band in question truly does sell their soul for fame.

You're missing the point I'm trying to make though. Bono's not saying that all artists necessarily want his level of fame and success. That's a completely different point. But think about it. Art such as music is pretty pointless unless it is communicated to an audience. I'm no philosopher, but I think what happens is the art itself, and the communication of it work together to form the EXPERIENCE for the listener. Communication by itself is pointless if your art is crap, and art is pointless if it's not communicated. Musical acts don't simply make a record, feel satisfied with it, and put in their nightstand for only them to listen to at night before they go to sleep. THEY SELL IT! THEY WANT PEOPLE TO HEAR IT. THEY WANT TO COMMUNICATE IT AND GIVE PEOPLE AN EXPERIENCE. That's NOT the same as saying they want to be the next U2, but it suggests that all artists who sell their music have a certain level of ambition and they want to succeed -- whether that's with a more narrow audience or with the whole dang world. If they "only cared about the music", then they wouldn't sell it to other people in the first place.

 

[LemonMelon]

There's a way to disagree without being disagreeable; rhiannsu is a perfect example of a fair debater. It's not as obvious with you as it is others like U2Bonovoxsuperstar or dalton, but more subtle with you, but you know what I mean.

We're being snarky with you because:

A) It's just that easy.

and

B) There is nothing to debate here. You haven't heard the record, so your opinion (which is based on prejudice and hearsay) means absolutely nothing.

 

[elevated_u2_fan]

We're being snarky with you because:

A) It's just that easy.

and

B) There is nothing to debate here. You haven't heard the record, so your opinion (which is based on prejudice and hearsay) means absolutely nothing.

On top of that, nothing new is ever brought to the table; it's always the same (and usually baffling) complaints...

 

[Dalton]

I'm isolating you because you're the only one ranting about how U2 have lost the plot, when you haven't even heard the new album.

B) There is nothing to debate here. You haven't heard the record, so your opinion (which is based on prejudice and hearsay) means absolutely nothing.

I don't think you guys are being fair to Mudfield. I read in another thread that the only reason he is holding out to listening to the new album is because he wants his first time to be special.

I'm sure he wants his first time to be .... explosive.

 

[popacrobat]

Thanks so much NamckuR. It only makes me more upset with the band. Achtung Baby had no sell-out moments -- maybe some of the lyrics, but nothing else. It was pure brilliance. Now, U2 is releasing dumbed down stuff -- trying to get on the charts with compromised artistic integrity. The Killers suck! Radiohead and Mogwai don't want to be lesser known. Prog rock isn't pretentious for the sake of it. These bands passionately make the kind of music they love and hope others will love it, too. Bono is praising far less talented people like Brandon Flowers, who is nothing if not pretentious and is full of himself if he thinks Thom Yorke and Radiohead have gone off track before "In Rainbows". The whole point has to be the music and then your audience. You can't let your audience tell you what to write to such a degree that you're only trying to appeal to so many people that you end up with formulaic fluff. What would the Beatles be if they didn't push boundaries. I'm all for Eno, even if I haven't loved all his work. The last decade has been a disaster for U2 because they've confused commercial success and Grammys recognition with artistic integrity. So tragic!

I'd like to hear those earlier versions of the singles, if Brian Eno thinks they were better, though -- maybe as b-sides.

as of yesterday, you hadn't listened to the album. So until you do this kind of nullifies all opinion, no?

 

[Slapnutz]

Of course you want your art to communicate and sell. But you should never compromise your art in the pursuit of these which is what U2 may have done with the likes of Stand Up Comedy judging by Eno's comments. Remain true to the work and then get out of its way as it goes off into the world. Don't keep amputating away until it fits into a certain category or appeals to a desired demographic.

 

[Dalton]

Of course you want your art to communicate and sell. But you should never compromise your art in the pursuit of these which is what U2 may have done with the likes of Stand Up Comedy judging by Eno's comments. Remain true to the work and then get out of its way as it goes off into the world. Don't keep amputating away until it fits into a certain category or appeals to a desired demographic.

What if ... wait for it ... U2 simply liked the album version better.

I've made it clear that 90s U2 was my favorite, but you young'ens gotta remember they were writing songs like Surrender LONG before they even went atmospheric which was way before they went ironic.

 

[phillyfan26]

It doesn't matter in the least whether Muldfeld's listened to the album. Because he's said so much, no matter what, when he listens to the album, he's just going to tell us it's exactly as he thought it would be, and that listening re-affirmed all of his fears. His complete lack of understanding of the difference between speculation and fact will continue, and in fact be enhanced, once he actually listens to the album.

 

[phillyfan26]

Lanois said all the previous versions of Stand Up Comedy felt MORE crafted than this one, so I'm sure this is the best one. If you're more crafted than the album version of Stand Up Comedy, you're probably a fucking terrible tune.

 

[revolver]

Bono's comments make me hurt.

I love the band, I love the man, but the comments in this article are seriously damaging to me as a fan of a band who I believed still "had it" leading up to this album. I also believe, unfortunately, they go a long ways toward giving some of us detractors credibility.

I'm not truly speaking ill of the album; I think its good not great. I think it could have been better if it had an actual balance of sonics and songwriting. Bono speaks of achieving this balance, but what I think he doesn't understand is that his version of rock and roll in this decade tips the balance into a territory where balance cannot be achieved. See, I agree with him - write perfect pop tunes and then layer the perfect arrangements of sounds. But I want more atmosphere and more subtlety in the songwriting.

If you think NLOTH is the perfect balance, then I'm glad. But consider Bowie's Low - and I'm not talking the split halves. The first half strikes me as the perfect balance between perfect pop and perfect innovation - interesting pop songs with interesting structures and arrangements that happened to include two hit singles in "Sound and Vision" (a song which is far from a typical single - 1 and 1/2 minute intro followed by an essentially chorusless minute and then song ends) and the far more typical "Be My Wife". The sounds are fresh, the songs are subdued yet divinely, perversely catchy. I think this is truly the proper balance, and since I do, I'd have to say that Bono is way off. Achtung is filled with pop songs, but it achieves this balance. NLOTH is filled with pop songs, but is safe in sound and lacking in songwriting compared to Achtung or Low. I believe it is lacking in songwriting because the band, judging by Bono's comments, is misunderstanding words like "progressive" and their heads are thus in the wrong place, which affects their songwriting, overcooking "hits" instead of freely writing great pieces of music, having confidence that they would just become hits on their own. I think his mind is skewered; I think they're making the exact music they want to make, but I still think that they will gain a different perspective which will return them to glory.

 

[mobvok]

But in the end, it's about, how good are the songs?"

^^ This, from Bono, is absolutely true. There are an awful lot of grandiose pet theories out there about The Arc Of The Band, but I think at the end of the day for NLOTH's tummy/midsection the band just misjudged which sketches would pan out into great songs. It seems like a bit of a defense mechanism, to say that U2 actually knows their radio-friendly music sucks but put it out there anyway because it's accessible, instead of conceding that they just innocently followed a bad idea.

 

[Dalton]

Ozeeko, slapnutz, & revolver, I'm curious about how old you are, how long you've been a fan U2 and how much you've delved into their back catalog. Of course, none of this helps/hurts your credibility, but I am curious. The songs that you all seem to have problems with seem like natural descendants of the U2 I grew up with.