Theory from the Times London Article (Worth Considering)

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

redhill

Refugee
Joined
Oct 9, 2000
Messages
2,296
Location
Lehigh, FL, USA
I hope this does not get merged with other NLOTH reviews as I think a theory from The Times London article is worth considering...

The excerpt is:

"A bizarre historical pendulum appears to be at work here. When the Republican Ronald Reagan was in the White House, U2 made thumpingly earnest and conservative records. Under the Democrat Bill Clinton, they loosened up and embraced sleazy hedonism. With George W. Bush, back to one-dimensional pomposity again. This bodes well for their albums in the Obama era."

Considering U2's love affair with America (and their historical sensitivity with commercial success here), I think this theory has some merit and am hoping that some other analytical folks might dissect.

Any thoughts?
 
I just think it's coincidental. Afterall, the 90's was just a significant change in thinking and emracement of sexuality as opposed to the Reagoncentric 80's.
 
I was in a band in 1999 and my guitar player suggested the theory to me that music is better during Republican administrations. Not just U2, but the need to rebel helped fuel everyone.... Not sure how these two theories fit together though.....
 
Since Bono hated Reagan's policies (a genuine man who was almost always genuinely wrong ... or something like that), this is nothing more than poorly researched speculation.
 
U2 musical shifts do often come out of cultural features or shifts -- culture which elects presidents. The article makes it seem like the other way around, that the president dictates the culture and thus U2 music. However, I would argue despite cultural feelings, U2 did not go along with the features of the times (and political leaders) as the article suggests. They were fiercely anti-Reagen, and anti-Iraq war. :shrug:
 
I was in a band in 1999 and my guitar player suggested the theory to me that music is better during Republican administrations. Not just U2, but the need to rebel helped fuel everyone.... Not sure how these two theories fit together though.....

Hmmm. Perhaps the best way to serve the age IS to betray it...
 
From a film perspective, it's interesting that the 80s under Reagan saw some of the best modern comedies ever made (GHOSTBUSTERS, CADDYSHACK, GOONIES, BACK TO THE FUTURE, etc); the 90s under Clinton saw a growth of dramas (L.A. CONFIDENTIAL, ENGLISH PATIENT, TITANIC, AMERICAN BEAUTY); and the 00s under Bush saw more comedies (anything by Judd Apatow or starring Ben Stiller). One wonders if the winds of entertainment blow opposite to the prevailing political ones....and what Obama will inspire.
 
I think the main reason it's an incorrect theory is because the album was written & at least started to be created long before Obama came into power. If it was released when originally planned, ie late 08, Bush would still have been in power.

Unless I'm misunderstanding things :reject:
 
This theory is a little bit daft, if you ask me.

What about the fact that Achtung Baby was recorded in Berlin? What about the fact that it was an album of personal songs with the political situation hardly pressing on the songs, despite the fact that it was a time of huge political change? The American political situation can at best be seen as merely a distant backdrop.

I could go on re other albums, but it seems that people always like to put these post-hoc interpretations on U2's output.

I'm waiting for some journalist to write a review about how prescient it was for Bono to reference an ATM machine in 'Moment of Surrender', how he demonstrates an awareness of cash flow problems and the sense of alienation this can lead to, blah blah blah

Any interpretation is valid when you find your hypothesis in your results.
 
Achtung Baby was recorded and released before Clinton was in office, and ATYCLB was recorded during the Clinton administration and was released before the 2000 election. The theory doesn't stand.

The theory that Republicans win the Presidential election whenever U2 releases an album in an election year is way more accurate than this theory.
 
Achtung Baby was recorded and released before Clinton was in office, and ATYCLB was recorded during the Clinton administration and was released before the 2000 election. The theory doesn't stand.

I don't think you even had to say all that to make this statement. ;)
 
ATYCLB didn't outsell Pop in it's first week but it had a very long tail, all the way through to the Super Bowl in 2002.

I think there might be *some* merit to saying that U2 became the biggest band in the world under Regan and again under W. They were non-existent in pop culture during the Clinton years.
 
U.S. Election history and U2 Discography

1976 no album, Carter [D]
1980 Boy, Reagan [R]
1984 The Unforgettable Fire, Reagan [R]
1988 Rattle and Hum, Bush Sr. [R]
1992 no album, Clinton [D]
1996 no album, Clinton [D]
2000 ATYCLB, Bush Jr. [R]
2004 HTDAAB, Bush Jr. [R]
2008 no album, Obama [D]
 
Republicans must be pissed with U2 right now...
 
Seriously, who comes up with this nonsense? Whoever it is certainly enjoys grasping at straws...
 
I actually think there's a bit of truth to this theory, although it's probably not as direct as the article presents it. The American president tends to reflect American (and, as a whole, western) culture, to an extent, and to say that U2's music doesn't reflect the popular cultural and musical trends of the time (even in an ironic way) is just wrong.
 
Back
Top Bottom