Why did Bono lie about this being a long album?

[VintagePunk]

Was exploring American roots music on JT and R&H an act of contrivance, then? What about their experiments on October, War, UF? So basically, anything that was thought out and performed after their first ever band practice in Dublin has been contrived.

That's a good point, it probably was. But I think the most substantial transition they made was to their AB sound/personas, and as such, it was probably more contrived.

Contrived isn't a bad word, people. It just means thought out and planned. The members of U2 don't strike me as particularly thoughtless people, I'm sure they've done a lot of thinking and planning over the years.

 

[VintagePunk]

With respect, I think you're misusing the word "contrived." Yes, they knew that they needed to reinvent themselves as artists in order to grow artistically, but one cannot be sincere and contrived at the same time. Yes, a lot of thought went into finding a new sound; but even more heart and spirit and blood and spit than plotting. They strained their souls to find that sound. No one can do what they did then simply through cold contrivance.

con·trive (kn-trv)
v. con·trived, con·triv·ing, con·trives
v.tr.
1. To plan with cleverness or ingenuity; devise: contrive ways to amuse the children.
2. To invent or fabricate, especially by improvisation: contrived a swing from hanging vines.
3. To plan with evil intent; scheme: contrived a plot to seize power.
4. To bring about, as by scheming; manage: somehow contrived to get past the guards unnoticed.

I certainly didn't mean it in the 3rd meaning of the word, that they did it with evil intentions. But I think the other 3 are valid.


But by virtue of this, using your definition, does that mean you're saying that post-2000 was insincere or evil?

 

[ozeeko]

Contrived isn't a bad word, people. It just means thought out and planned. The members of U2 don't strike me as particularly thoughtless people, I'm sure they've done a lot of thinking and planning over the years.

So basically, what you're trying to say is...that music, in general, is contrived.

 

[Niceman]

con·trive (kn-trv)
v. con·trived, con·triv·ing, con·trives
v.tr.
1. To plan with cleverness or ingenuity; devise: contrive ways to amuse the children.
2. To invent or fabricate, especially by improvisation: contrived a swing from hanging vines.
3. To plan with evil intent; scheme: contrived a plot to seize power.
4. To bring about, as by scheming; manage: somehow contrived to get past the guards unnoticed.

I certainly didn't mean it in the 3rd meaning of the word, that they did it with evil intentions. But I think the other 3 are valid.

Did you mean it with the first meaning then? That it was ingenius? Or the second, that they invented it? maybe the fourth meaning? That they were scheming? I don't believe the context suggests you meant anything as simple as any of these.
I suspect that you were suggesting a lack of organic sincerity in the work. Am I mistaken?
If I am, then were you really just saying; " Boy, they put a lot of thought into how to make a great album!"

 

[VintagePunk]

Did you mean it with the first meaning then? That it was ingenius? Or the second, that they invented it? maybe the fourth meaning? That they were scheming? I don't believe the context suggests you meant anything as simple as any of these.
I suspect that you were suggesting a lack of organic sincerity in the work. Am I mistaken?
If I am, then were you really just saying; " Boy, they put a lot of thought into how to make a great album!"

Yes, you're mistaken. I guess to some people, "contrived" holds some negative connotations. To me it doesn't. I think that where you're thinking a lack of sincerity, I'm thinking more along the lines of having made conscious decisions. Does that make more sense?

So basically, what you're trying to say is...that music, in general, is contrived.

No, not necessarily all music. I'm sure some musicians sit down and start messing around in the writing process, and very organically follow that trail wherever that leads them. I'm just saying that with a band of U2's stature, where they have certain expectations to live up to, they probably have to be more conscious of taking particular directions and career paths than other musicians might. Plus, U2 do have very specific goals in mind - that biggest band in the world thing.

I'm probably not even making sense at this point, but I know what I mean. It's late, and I'm arguing semantics...

 

[Niceman]

Yes, you're mistaken. I guess to some people, "contrived" holds some negative connotations. To me it doesn't. I think that where you're thinking a lack of sincerity, I'm thinking more along the lines of having made conscious decisions. Does that make more sense?

Alright then, but generally when you call a song "contrived" or a story "contrived" or even the plot of a movie "contrived." Everyone will understand you as saying that it is a very bad thing; having a lack of organic sincerity is the best description I can come up with.

 

[ozeeko]

Yes, you're mistaken. I guess to some people, "contrived" holds some negative connotations. To me it doesn't. I think that where you're thinking a lack of sincerity, I'm thinking more along the lines of having made conscious decisions. Does that make more sense?

In summarization:

All music that is planned and thought-out is contrived. So basically, every song or piece of music ever written, except if it's improvisational.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I really have no idea what their personal or professional lives "collapsing" has to do with it, and I would also say collapsing is a hell of an overstatement. They were living, experiencing life's ups and downs, just like we all do.

Sorry, I thought you were referring specifically to the album, not the whole surrounding image/tour etc. Personally, I don’t see some grand conspiracy to sell out and make a truckload of cash etc during the Bomb era. I have no beef with an iPod ad or a Super Bowl appearance or any of that. The world has changed. I think the 00s are as honest as any period of time, if not perhaps underlined by a serious crisis in confidence post Pop/Popmart bombing in the US. That’s why I referred to their personal and professional lives at the time. I thought you meant the music on Achtung was contrived, that it was somehow not natural, when with one band member hurtling toward divorce, and another – well, the FAQ says we can’t talk about it – and the near band splitting tensions at the time all, obviously (preaching to the choir, I know), lead perfectly to what is on that album.

But, taking your point about the larger picture – dreaming it all up again, the tour, the image changes – there’s a big difference, but fine line, between contrived and just really great ideas and hard work coming together in perhaps the most perfect way, even if some of those are enforced within or forced from outside. I don’t think any of that was contrived, in the sense that I don’t think any of it was bullshit. Of course though it was carefully planned. I also don’t think that in the 00s U2 had some meeting where they decided that they were getting old or whatever, or that they should never do anything again that doesn’t guarantee an $X billion tour profit at the end of it, so they must make dumbed down, high selling pop music and set off on unambitious, uninspired tours, while flogging their wares at every available opportunity. So.. we probably don’t have any disagreement. I mostly just think that what U2 tried to do was understandable and perfectly… noble, or whatever, but the end result was way below their true ability. Their good at what they do. Fucking good. They should really push themselves.

 

[Niceman]

Sorry, I thought you were referring specifically to the album, not the whole surrounding image/tour etc. Personally, I don’t see some grand conspiracy to sell out and make a truckload of cash etc during the Bomb era. I have no beef with an iPod ad or a Super Bowl appearance or any of that. The world has changed. I think the 00s are as honest as any period of time, if not perhaps underlined by a serious crisis in confidence post Pop/Popmart bombing in the US. That’s why I referred to their personal and professional lives at the time. I thought you meant the music on Achtung was contrived, that it was somehow not natural, when with one band member hurtling toward divorce, and another – well, the FAQ says we can’t talk about it – and the near band splitting tensions at the time all, obviously (preaching to the choir, I know), lead perfectly to what is on that album.

What can't we talk about?????????????????????????????

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Bono was in a Fight Club.

 

[VintagePunk]

Alright then, but generally when you call a song "contrived" or a story "contrived" or even the plot of a movie "contrived." Everyone will understand you as saying that it is a very bad thing; having a lack of organic sincerity is the best description I can come up with.

But I showed you that the word doesn't have to be negative! I can't help if other people surmise incorrectly because they don't know definitions. Planned; thought out; calculated, even. They're artists, but they're also shrewd businessmen.

The original poster with the post-Pop being contrived comment - he may have been implying those things. I was just showing that as far as "career plotting" goes, they acted very specifically and deliberately during the Zoo era, moreso than post-2000, IMO.

 

[AtomicBono]

Bono was in a Fight Club.

well played.

 

[VintagePunk]

Sorry, I thought you were referring specifically to the album, not the whole surrounding image/tour etc. Personally, I don’t see some grand conspiracy to sell out and make a truckload of cash etc during the Bomb era. I have no beef with an iPod ad or a Super Bowl appearance or any of that. The world has changed. I think the 00s are as honest as any period of time, if not perhaps underlined by a serious crisis in confidence post Pop/Popmart bombing in the US. That’s why I referred to their personal and professional lives at the time. I thought you meant the music on Achtung was contrived, that it was somehow not natural, when with one band member hurtling toward divorce, and another – well, the FAQ says we can’t talk about it – and the near band splitting tensions at the time all, obviously (preaching to the choir, I know), lead perfectly to what is on that album.

But, taking your point about the larger picture – dreaming it all up again, the tour, the image changes – there’s a big difference, but fine line, between contrived and just really great ideas and hard work coming together in perhaps the most perfect way, even if some of those are enforced within or forced from outside. I don’t think any of that was contrived, in the sense that I don’t think any of it was bullshit. Of course though it was carefully planned. I also don’t think that in the 00s U2 had some meeting where they decided that they were getting old or whatever, or that they should never do anything again that doesn’t guarantee an $X billion tour profit at the end of it, so they must make dumbed down, high selling pop music and set off on unambitious, uninspired tours, while flogging their wares at every available opportunity. So.. we probably don’t have any disagreement. I mostly just think that what U2 tried to do was understandable and perfectly… noble, or whatever, but the end result was way below their true ability. Their good at what they do. Fucking good. They should really push themselves.

I pretty much mostly agree with all of that. And I've read all the stories that you're referring to (and some of them, I don't think, are unique to that era, but again, like you said, FAQs). Where we part company is that I think the post-2000 output is good. It's a reflection of where they were at the time, and as fans, we have to choice to either accept it, or to not.

I'm one of the very few people around here who actually enjoy all of their catalogue, for very different reasons. Each album evokes a different mood for me, and I find myself reaching for various albums, depending on my mood and needs at the time. They pretty much all fulfill needs for me. Am I in the mood to listen to ATYCLB every day, week, or month, even? No. But then as much as I love AB, I'm not in the mood for that constantly, either. Sometimes ATYCLB hits the spot better. I guess it's not that way for everyone, though, and that's cool.

 

[Niceman]

But I showed you that the word doesn't have to be negative! I can't help if other people surmise incorrectly because they don't know definitions. Planned; thought out; calculated, even.

The original poster with the post-Pop being contrived comment - he may have been implying those things. I was just showing that as far as "career plotting" goes, they acted very specifically and deliberately during the Zoo era, moreso than post-2000, IMO.

I'm telling you how the word is used in the real world. Go up to any artist and tell him that his work is contrived and see what reaction you get.

 

[Niceman]

Bono was in a Fight Club.

He wanted to destroy something beautiful???

 

[BVS]

I understand what you are getting at VP...

and I agree, to be honest I can't think of any successful band or musician that hasn't carefully thoughtout their paths or movements. Even many of those that come off as aloof are much more thoughtout than you think...

I find that many of the posters that constantly bring up this argument are often the same folks that have a very narrow definition of "experimental" yet throw it around all the time, their definition of "cool" usually has to coincide with a Pitchfork mentality that big or popular is wrong, and if they took an honest look at the other musicians they worship they would see a lot of what they complain about U2 in those musicians given time(but Radiohead or Arcade Fire haven't been around for 30 years yet)...

 

[VintagePunk]

I understand what you are getting at VP...

and I agree, to be honest I can't think of any successful band or musician that hasn't carefully thoughtout their paths or movements. Even many of those that come off as aloof are much more thoughtout than you think...

I find that many of the posters that constantly bring up this argument are often the same folks that have a very narrow definition of "experimental" yet throw it around all the time, their definition of "cool" usually has to coincide with a Pitchfork mentality that big or popular is wrong, and if they took an honest look at the other musicians they worship they would see a lot of what they complain about U2 in those musicians given time(but Radiohead or Arcade Fire haven't been around for 30 years yet)...

Thank you!

It's not like in every case, some magical muse speaks to an artist and the music just flows out of their fingertips or mouths. Sometimes there's careful consideration as to the direction the artist wants to move into (or maybe to what they want to leave behind), and the art is formed consciously with that in mind. To me, that's not negative at all. It's just not necessarily *magical*, but then I think it's kind of a romantic view that all art is completely organic. And that's not even to mention the planning a band like U2 has to do as far as image and stage direction goes.

Does that make the end result any less valid than the magical muse type of offering? Not at all.

That's all I meant.

 

[ozeeko]

Experimental for U2, in my opinion, is when they strive for something musically that is out of their comfort zone. Whether it's with synthesizers or all accoustic instruments, it doesn't matter. You could say UF was as experimental as Zooropa. When you think about it, it was U2 trying something new and out of their comfort zone. In other words, something experimental.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

U2 are extremely progressive, but only lightly experimental.

Edit: ozeeko said it better.

 

[BVS]

Experimental for U2, in my opinion, is when they strive for something musically that is out of their comfort zone. Whether it's with synthesizers or all accoustic instruments, it doesn't matter. You could say UF was as experimental as Zooropa. When you think about it, it was U2 trying something new and out of their comfort zone. In other words, something experimental.

I agree, yet ATYCLB doesn't get any credit for being "experimental" with tracks like In a Little While or Wild Honey that dive into an almost Motown vibe. Even Stuck to an extent... Bono got very little credit when lyrically he went for straight forward joy, something he hadn't done before 2000.

We even had a poster recently that said experimental = effects on the vocals, using electronic elements, etc and went on to map out that anything outside a Zooropa, Kid A, Passengers sounding album wouldn't be experimental.

Not that I'm trying to make a point that U2 was breaking huge ground in the 2000's but I'm tired of the U2 by numbers argument... To me it's just a lazy argument.

 

[ozeeko]

I agree, yet ATYCLB doesn't get any credit for being "experimental" with tracks like In a Little While or Wild Honey that dive into an almost Motown vibe. Even Stuck to an extent... Bono got very little credit when lyrically he went for straight forward joy, something he hadn't done before 2000.

We even had a poster recently that said experimental = effects on the vocals, using electronic elements, etc and went on to map out that anything outside a Zooropa, Kid A, Passengers sounding album wouldn't be experimental.

Not that I'm trying to make a point that U2 was breaking huge ground in the 2000's but I'm tired of the U2 by numbers argument... To me it's just a lazy argument.

Yea, In A Little While was definitely something new for them. I think it's one of their best songs in the 2000s era. Mos definitenly in my top 5. Wild Honey was unique in the way that it's a song that would've NEVER made it to the final cut in their old days. I liked the fact that this time they said, ehh what the hell let's give 'em a straight up breezy pop song that normally we'd save for a B-side. Plus, it helps that the song's actually good, in that Van Morrison kind of way.

I guess I could say with BOMB they experimented with bad songwriting (haha). I mean, I'm not gonna say every song was treading familiar territory, I think Fast Cars was a fresh new number with textures and sounds we'd never heard from the band b4, and some others like Original of (even tho i don't even like it i can honestly say it is them at their most Beatlesque, a style they never went full throttle with b4) and on A Man And A Woman, where the only thing i really like about it is the steamy city street neighborhood jukebox vibe, unfortunately for me i find the hooks and music to be quite bland.

Most of the songs definitely struck me as all-too-familiar territory. MD sounded like ATYCLB, only without the inspiration or songwriting talent, Crumbs (which i like actually) sounds almost like a rewrite of Electrical Storm, COBL still sounds like a lame attempt to create a WTSHNN for the next generation, and Yahweh sounded to me like a U2 parody, like if someone was told to write a U2 sounding song, quick you have 5 minutes, Yahweh is something close to what they would come up with.

Out of the new clips, the one part i find a little too playing it safe is the chorus (i think it is anyway) to I'll Go Crazy. When he sings "it's not a hill it's a mountain", i feel like you could sing "walk oooon, walk oooon" underneath and it would sound quite pretty.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Yep – no problem with the styles they’re covering, or recognizing that in some cases they are new or progressive (or experimental) etc. It’s wrong to pin the entire Anti Bomb crowd down as a pro-90s “if I don’t quite know what it is, then it must be good” crowd who can’t accept or appreciate great, simple, melodic, catchy music. I do, completely. As I’ve said a thousand times before, they can do it right (Beautiful Day, In A Little While etc) and they can do it wrong (Vertigo, Miracle Drug). I think that’s because when you are dealing with that style of pop music, the risks are there as much as they are when you are at the other end of the extreme, at a genre bending/breaking/busting/redefining experimental end. One because you can take it too far, the other because it’s easy to lean too heavily on the surface level tricks and thus leave the songs without a soul.

Original of the Species has a super catchy, memorable melody and a simple, direct lyric. Good enough for many, but not for me. TO ME (sorry, watching out for the !!!SUBJECTIVE!!! police) its cheesy, over the top and really just a weak song hiding behind a shiny facade, meanwhile, I think they got Walk On almost exactly right. Whats the difference? I don’t really know. Maybe it’s The Force and it just wasn’t strong with them on the Bomb. Maybe it is in overworking. I don’t know. But it’s not the style of the songs, it’s the quality. I think ATYCLB is mostly inoffensive but weak. I think Atomic Bomb is mostly flat out terrible.

I’m hoping any/all breezy pop songs on NLOTH land a notch or two above the best of ATYCLB. If so, I truly look forward to those as much as I do any Zooropa-esque electronic whatever and any Achtung-esque angsty guitar and any UF-esque wide open spaces and any new styles and sounds, etc, etc.

 

[VintagePunk]

Whats the difference? I don’t really know.

So true. You can point to a lot of variables that make a song good or bad, but I think sometimes certain songs resonate (or not) with various people for indefinable reasons.

I see a ton of criticism for Miracle Drug around here, and yet when I hear it, when they get to the part where Edge goes into his solo, and then sings his verse, and then at the end, Bono comes in, I get this uplifting feeling - a feeling that I should be getting with Streets, but haven't for at least a decade now - and it's incredible. I can't explain why this happens, it just does. That was always a favourite moment for me seeing it live on the tour, and of the 8 shows I went to, it never got old. Hearing the song now always reminds me of that, and I still get that feeling. Sometimes I prefer not to analyze things like that, I just enjoy where it takes me.

If the song itself can do that for even one person, can it be objectively bad? I don't think so.

 

[Saracene]

I agree, yet ATYCLB doesn't get any credit for being "experimental" with tracks like In a Little While or Wild Honey that dive into an almost Motown vibe.

"Experimental" does my head in to be honest, but my impression from reading music-related media is that it's used rather narrowly to describe a particular sound/direction, rather than a band trying something they haven't done before. A band can experiment with a new style, but it doesn't mean that their music will be called experimental. If Bjork does a straight country album tomorrow I doubt anyone will refer to it as "experimental". On another hand, a band can make a few albums sticking roughly to the same sound and still have their work described as "experimental". It's all rather confusing.

 

[Anji]

At first, this thread was someone angsting about how long NLOTH was. Then it was awesome. Now it's back to angst. What happened?

EDIT: Well, it's not that angsty, but I miss when this thread was massively derailed.

Me too

 

[dan_smee]

If a certain few posters return, im sure it will fall apart again

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Which posters must we look out for?

 

[dan_smee]

scroll back about 5 or so pages

 

[Anji]

scroll back about 5 or so pages

Or the next post

I saw this on a London Bus this morning

 

[U2girl]

I agree, yet ATYCLB doesn't get any credit for being "experimental" with tracks like In a Little While or Wild Honey that dive into an almost Motown vibe. Even Stuck to an extent... Bono got very little credit when lyrically he went for straight forward joy, something he hadn't done before 2000.

We even had a poster recently that said experimental = effects on the vocals, using electronic elements, etc and went on to map out that anything outside a Zooropa, Kid A, Passengers sounding album wouldn't be experimental.

Not that I'm trying to make a point that U2 was breaking huge ground in the 2000's but I'm tired of the U2 by numbers argument... To me it's just a lazy argument.

Also, well said, Vintage Punk.