"Bono's biggest sellout"

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Hey everyone,
I find the hateful articles in life to be the most interesting for a few reasons:
1. I am curious to see the "other side" of a point of view in order to compare it to mine
2. they are much more amusing, interesting and/or provacative than a complimentary article.

Anyway, let me preface by saying that this excerpt was taken from the "Well Hung" section of the current Rolling Stone Magazine. The authors of this article(Jason Cohen and another fellow who I cannot recall at the moment) have a strong hatred and bias against Bono. I am a frequent reader of Rolling Stone and to be fair, they are usually very favorable toward U2. If you have any anger to vent, please try to direct it toward someone other than Rolling Stone. I am very cusious to read your replies(you can reply to the authors at SQWUBBSY@AOL.COM).

BANALITY OF EVIL AWARD: Bono

This one really ought to be named after the little prick. See, what you people can't seem to fathom is that U2 spent the last half of the Nineties wallowing in artistic and commercial relevance. They didn't "get back to rock" because of passion. They "applied for the job" of BBITW because that's what it is to them -- a job. The kids wanna rock, they said, so we'll ditch this techno stuff (which was an equally desperate aesthetic
choice, the first time their experimentation felt motivated by external rather than internal forces). The only bands that matter are on TRL, so we'll pander to that. Clear Channel is gonna give us the most money and that will help us get more radio play, so we'll cast our lot with them, and we'll have $45 general admission seats so nobody
notices we're charging $130 for the good ones. We don't care about Bono's attempts to "change the system from within" -- it still doesn't justify lending someone like Jesse Helms credibility, or pandering to the same corporate fuckers responsible for world debt by showing at the Super Bowl. It's a long way from "New Year's Day" to "Beautiful Day," that's for fucking sure.

We've got no trouble with Edge, Larry and Adam, though. They're cool.

My reaction to the article:
Firstly, I read the article knowing that it WOULD NOT be objective b/c these guys hate Bono. Some of their points were nonsense and silly:
1. "we don't care that he is trying to change from within,"--they are just ignoring Bono's good work b/c they don't like him
2. "they spent the last half of the nineties wallowing in commercial and artistic relevance."--that is just not completely true; they DID NOT "wallow" and DID NOT care about being commercially relevent(especially in the States) during they 90's; if they did they would not have had the guts to experiment in the 1st place!
3. the only people on the planet who know where the passion for writing the songs on ATYCLB or any other album(such as their experimentation that is mentioned)are the 4 members of the band; for someone to state that he or she knows where the passion comes from is silly.

It pains me to admit that I agree with some of this piece, though. Some examples:
1. U2 tix ARE TOO expensive
2. U2 has over-exposed themselves over the past year-and-a-half and much of this exposure has not been simply b/c of 9/11 so that is not totally a justifiable excuse(Leno, Letterman, Super Bowl, Grammys(twice), MTV Awards twice, NBA Halftime, TRL, VH1, etc...)
3. I sometimes wonder whether U2 really felt compelled to "go back to scratch" or if they are just catering to their American audience and capitalizing on the slow reamergence of rock(Creed, Incubus, System of a Down, P.O.D., etc...).
4. I did not like the fact that U2 WENT ON TRL; it is one thing to sell yourself and try to "fuck up the mainstream," but this appearance wreaked of "please love me."
5. Bono once said, "be careful of TV, it minimizes what you do."--this one is defenseless and it makes Bono look like a hypocrite.

I realize that this is a lengthy post. U2 and Bono(admittedly, he deserves some of this and it is expected b/c he comes across as an arrogant, opinionated jerk sometimes) in particular have been getting reamed in the media over this past week and I have been trying to understand where some of the cynisism is coming from. Some of it is ignorant, nonsensible and laughable. Other parts of it actually seem to make a lot of sense and has made me re-think my outlook on U2. I still thorougly enjoy their music and maybe I always will b/c they connect with me like no other music. However, I sometimes wonder what their motivation, goals and intentions truly are.

I hope that you reply and involve yourself in this on this subject and/or ethical dilemma.
 
Originally posted by MBH:

1. U2 tix ARE TOO expensive
2. U2 has over-exposed themselves over the past year-and-a-half and much of this exposure has not been simply b/c of 9/11 so that is not totally a justifiable excuse(Leno, Letterman, Super Bowl, Grammys(twice), MTV Awards twice, NBA Halftime, TRL, VH1, etc...)
3. I sometimes wonder whether U2 really felt compelled to "go back to scratch" or if they are just catering to their American audience and capitalizing on the slow reamergence of rock(Creed, Incubus, System of a Down, P.O.D., etc...).
4. I did not like the fact that U2 WENT ON TRL; it is one thing to sell yourself and try to "fuck up the mainstream," but this appearance wreaked of "please love me."
5. Bono once said, "be careful of TV, it minimizes what you do."--this one is defenseless and it makes Bono look like a hypocrite.


1. Yes, they are, but the article seemed to imply that the $45 GA tix were not good, when obviously they were the best in the house. I loved GA, and it was more than worth the $45 I payed for each of the 3 shows to which I went.

2. Yes, U2 made a conscious effort to be in the public eye. If you want to call this "mainstream" or "selling out" I guess it's how you look at it. Personally, if I saw all the crap that passes for popular music today, I might have the same reaction as U2 seemed to. They seem to be saying "let's challenge all this pop-junk with some quality songs. Let's show the world that a rock band can still be huge, that NSYNC and Brittney don't rule everything."
I would take it as a personal challenge to unseat boy bands from the throne.

3. If anything, I think Creed is building off of U2's old foundation, which never really vanished. U2 doesn't need Creed for success. As for those other bands, they are more a part of the hardcore/rapcore scene anyway. Their styles are so different as to afford no real comparison.

4. I agree, they are a little over the top with apperances, but again I can see why they might do it. I really do think they are putting out some of the best music now, and as such shouldn't they get the best recognition etc.? Well, at least in an ideal world...

5. I think that there's a difference between Bono's quote and appearing on TV. Special appearences are different then like, bad sitcoms or soap operas. Now, if Bono started a show just like all the other crap that was on tv, I would be worried.
 
"2. "they spent the last half of the nineties wallowing in commercial and artistic relevance."--that is just not completely true; they DID NOT "wallow" and DID NOT care about being commercially relevent(especially in the States) during they 90's; if they did they would not have had the guts to experiment in the 1st place!"

Um, that is not completely true either; sure they wanted to experiment, but they did expect POP to sell like hotcakes (Paul McGuinness predicted 20 million in sales as I remember reading). IMO if they -truly- didn't care about the sales, they'd put out "Passengers" as a U2 album.

Anyway, this notion of POP being the first album motivated by external rather than internal forces is not really convincing IMO. Achtung Baby was an extremely self-conscious attempt by U2 to re-invent themselves and their music, which had a lot to do with the public getting fed up with U2's 80s personas, so if any album was motivated by the "external forces" Achtung Baby was it.
 

Anyway, this notion of POP being the first album motivated by external rather than internal forces is not really convincing IMO. Achtung Baby was an extremely self-conscious attempt by U2 to re-invent themselves and their music, which had a lot to do with the public getting fed up with U2's 80s personas, so if any album was motivated by the "external forces" Achtung Baby was it.

U2 albums are always motivated by "external forces" to some degree. They are pop artists. They have an audience. They are aware of their audience. It's not that complicated.
Just before Joshua Tree came out there were are lot of interviews with the band where they expressed their frustration that they had never had a "hit" single in America. When they released Pride they thought it would be a big hit in America but it tanked. The Joshua Tree, the band explained, was an attempt to make a great album that was popular and had "songs" on it that could be played on the radio.

MAP
 
Originally posted by MBH:
Hey everyone,
I find the hateful articles in life to be the most interesting for a few reasons:
1. I am curious to see the "other side" of a point of view in order to compare it to mine
2. they are much more amusing, interesting and/or provacative than a complimentary article.
Me too.
"Banality of Evil Award:" OUCH. That's rather the tip-off to a particularly deep slant, eh? Knocks several pegs off the credibility scale.


I realize that this is a lengthy post. U2 and Bono(admittedly, he deserves some of this and it is expected b/c he comes across as an arrogant, opinionated jerk sometimes) in particular have been getting reamed in the media over this past week and I have been trying to understand where some of the cynisism is coming from. Some of it is ignorant, nonsensible and laughable. Other parts of it actually seem to make a lot of sense and has made me re-think my outlook on U2. I still thorougly enjoy their music and maybe I always will b/c they connect with me like no other music. However, I sometimes wonder what their motivation, goals and intentions truly are.
I've never had any doubts about their motivations; they always begin in personal and artistic integrity. People who write for the performing arts, by definition and compulsion, create work that MUST engage an audience, the work is incomplete until it does. Sure, some pander when they lose the passion to share their own vision -- but U2 can never be accused of that. How crazy would a playwright be if he wrote a piece without imagining an audience in the house??
As I noted earlier, Bono's passions tend to be big, U2's music is often big, and that makes them an easy target. Bono sometimes oversteps -- out of enthusiasm, not insincerity. Out of overambition, not greed. An admirable sort of flaw, I think.

And just a note on the "Passengers" thing: it wasn't a U2 album, though. It was a 5-piece in which Eno was an equal, which included Eno's compositions...even musically, it feels like a completely different entity. I never imagined I could hear Edge,Adam, Larry, and Bono play together and NOT "hear" U2, but on this record I hear simply five musicians. Very cool.

And I just listened to the C-Span clip of the WEF's opening panel. Let 'em criticize Bono for who he hangs out with, never mind, 'cause that was amazing.

all fired up again,
Deb D


------------------
take some time out and entertain the questions of a
longing heart
-- Steve Beard

the greatest frontman in the world - by truecoloursfly: http://www.atu2.com/news/article.src?ID=1575
 
Back
Top Bottom