LMP
Blue Crack Supplier
the tourist said:
she packed my bags...last night, preflight *sucks cig*
zero hour...9 AM...
and I'm gonna be.......high.....as a kite, by then
Clayton Hints of New Direction on Next Record
- Thread starter dismantle
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
she packed my bags...last night, preflight *sucks cig*
zero hour...9 AM...
and I'm gonna be.......high.....as a kite, by then
Bono's shades
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Layton said:
The vast majority of the population doesn't give a crap about innovation in music. The vast majority of the population just loves radio-friendly, familar-sounding music. So even though U2 did piss off some people with ATYCLB and HTDAAB, the band wasn't really risking anything because the people who were likely to love it far outnumbered those who were likely to not be impressed.
Bono's shades said:
Totally disagree with that because I said their reputation and legacy were put at risk. Those things can't be quantified by numbers. Losing 10 passionate fans is far worse than gaining 50 casual fans, I'd argue. That's the risk U2 took with HTDAAB (and the IPod commercial). Like always, U2 played a risk/reward game. They saw the reward as potentially being a windfall of new passionate fans, not just casual ones. The album delivers its thematic content in easy to digest forms (great melodies, sonic assuredness) in order to lure listeners into the brand of open heart surgery that is taking place on HTDAAB. If the listener follows this journey and discovers a personal soundtrack to these troubled times in the world, then a new passionate fan emerges. In conclusion, I think that it takes real guts to risk losing certain passionate fans ('90's lovers) for potentially more up-to-date passionate fans. Time will tell if the risk paid off or not.
Last edited:
Zoots
Blue Crack Supplier
Layton said:
What nonsense! HTDAAB has a much more friendly sound than Zooropa, Passengers or Pop. So I'm sure it sells more. U2 had to know that it would sell more, they've been in the business for so long! What else is that but a safe way to make more money?
And their reputation and legacy are not exactly going to dissolve and vanish just because they released mainstream sounding albums. Fans are still gonna keep listening to their AB, JT, Zooropa, UF and whatever else records!
Meghan
Refugee
^ Just like Rolling Stones are still loved, but not so much for their new stuff.
(But I still love new U2
)
(But I still love new U2
)Zootlesque said:
Why do you think they want to make more money?
Why do you think they want to sell more?
Why does HTDAAB have a friendly sound?
Do you think that U2 really has devolved into solely a money-making endeavor?
If so, does that risk harming a legacy and reputation built on artistry?
Can a reputation and/or legacy be risked this far into one's career?
If so, what kind of things can possibly hurt U2's reputation and legacy at this point?
Sorry to ask so many questions, but you seem to be speaking over my head most of the time. I think answers to some of those questions would give me a clearer understanding of your position. Thanks!!
bathiu
Refugee
U2girl said:
NO ONE CAME BACK.
U2 have around 3-4mln FANS (that will buy everything with a U2 sign on it)... the rest of the albums' sales is just "commercial succes", nothing more.
Zoots
Blue Crack Supplier
In response to Layton...
Why do you think they want to make more money?
I don't know.. cos they made less money than they thought they would with Pop & Popmart??? And all said and done, at the end of the day it's a business. But how much artistic integrity are they willing to sacrifice just to make as much money as before and continue to be the biggest band in the world? If I were them I would be happy with my glorious past and stick to do what I do best... pushing the envelope, making new and interesting music and not giving a fuck whether it will sell or if I'll continue to be the biggest band in the world. Numbers don't equal quality!
Why do you think they want to sell more?
see above. Also... the 'reaching out to more people' argument doesn't exactly make sense cos they're losing old fans in the process!
Why does HTDAAB have a friendly sound?
Listen to Passengers, Pop, Radiohead's Kid A, Amnesiac, Pearl Jam's Vitalogy etc.. and then listen to ATYCLB and HTDAAB. Isn't it obvious which one is more radio friendly/easy to get into... and which ones make you go
at first, but then as you listen more, you see the amount of work that has gone into it!
Do you think that U2 really has devolved into solely a money-making endeavor?
Maybe not 'solely' a money making endeavor.. but it feels like they're not trying as hard as before and are resting on their legacy! I could see it instantly in the sub-standard lyrics of ATYCLB.
If so, does that risk harming a legacy and reputation built on artistry?
There is no risk here because the more radio friendly an album is, the more it is guaranteed that you'll get listeners and subsequently buyers! The old fans are gonna be listening to the old records anyway. The legacy is still safe.
Can a reputation and/or legacy be risked this far into one's career?
I don't think so. Even old fans who're really pissed off with what the band is doing now (I'm NOT one of them btw
) are still going to keep listening to the albums they always loved! It would be hard to find old fans who're totally boycotting even their past work just cos they're pissed with the band presently... I think.
If so, what kind of things can possibly hurt U2's reputation and legacy at this point?
n/a
Why do you think they want to make more money?
I don't know.. cos they made less money than they thought they would with Pop & Popmart??? And all said and done, at the end of the day it's a business. But how much artistic integrity are they willing to sacrifice just to make as much money as before and continue to be the biggest band in the world? If I were them I would be happy with my glorious past and stick to do what I do best... pushing the envelope, making new and interesting music and not giving a fuck whether it will sell or if I'll continue to be the biggest band in the world. Numbers don't equal quality!
Why do you think they want to sell more?
see above. Also... the 'reaching out to more people' argument doesn't exactly make sense cos they're losing old fans in the process!
Why does HTDAAB have a friendly sound?
Listen to Passengers, Pop, Radiohead's Kid A, Amnesiac, Pearl Jam's Vitalogy etc.. and then listen to ATYCLB and HTDAAB. Isn't it obvious which one is more radio friendly/easy to get into... and which ones make you go
at first, but then as you listen more, you see the amount of work that has gone into it!Do you think that U2 really has devolved into solely a money-making endeavor?
Maybe not 'solely' a money making endeavor.. but it feels like they're not trying as hard as before and are resting on their legacy! I could see it instantly in the sub-standard lyrics of ATYCLB.
If so, does that risk harming a legacy and reputation built on artistry?
There is no risk here because the more radio friendly an album is, the more it is guaranteed that you'll get listeners and subsequently buyers! The old fans are gonna be listening to the old records anyway. The legacy is still safe.
Can a reputation and/or legacy be risked this far into one's career?
I don't think so. Even old fans who're really pissed off with what the band is doing now (I'm NOT one of them btw
) are still going to keep listening to the albums they always loved! It would be hard to find old fans who're totally boycotting even their past work just cos they're pissed with the band presently... I think.If so, what kind of things can possibly hurt U2's reputation and legacy at this point?
n/a
roy
Refugee
Zootlesque said:
Are you seriously suggesting that, despite being multi-millionaires (many times over), they have after all this time started making music purely for profit. Your opinion doesn't make sense, does it?
If this was their motivation why didn't they do it in 1984?
namkcuR
ONE love, blood, life
It depends on what kind of risk we're talking about. If we're talking about the risk concerning selling records, making money, etc, then Zootlesque is right, there is NO risk. The risk that U2 are taking, imo, has to do with the RESPECT that they command or used to command from the RADIO and from CRITICS.
In the 90s, as late is 1998 and 1999, I would hear U2 songs - as old as SBS and as recent as Sweetest Thing(Single Mix) with UF/JT/AB stuff in between - on the radio ALL the friggen' time. The radio stations I speak of were of course local Alternative Rock radio stations. Now? Not only do MANY of these stations shy away from the newer material, they don't even play the OLDER stuff much anymore either. I really think that the radio industry have lost that certain amount of respect that they used to have for U2. I think that's a big part of why U2's singles don't do so well anymore.
And critically? To tell the truth I'm surprised that Rolling Stone gave ATYCLB the glowing reviews it did back in 2000. But, as we all know, Rolling Stone is no longer the great music magazine it once was. I don't think the RS of 1993 would speak kindly of the U2 of 2005.
What this all comes down to is that while U2 aren't risking record sales or money, they are risking RESPECT. The way I like to put it is this: In America, we have a network called the Bravo Network. The Bravo Network, when it's not airing 'Queer Eye For The Straigth Guy' episodes, focuses on the Fine Arts. Three and Four star movies, 'Inside The Actor's Studio' where the best actors and actresses in the world(well, for the first 7 or 8 years of it anyway) are interviewed in front of acting/directing students, and the exploration of the most renouned acts of Pop and Rock music, among other thigns - that kind of thing. And there are other TV networks here and there that focus on the Fine Arts as well. If U2 had retired in 1999(or continued to be the band they were up until then), I think they'd be an automatic for this and other networks that focus on the Fine Arts, but now? Now I don't feel like U2 is so focused on the 'Fine Art' or even just the 'art' aspect of it anymore. And if they're not focused on it, why should networks dedicated to Fine Arts be focused on U2?
What I'm trying to say is, U2 can sell 10 million copies, but so can Britany Spears and Usher. But in the past U2 would be regarded in MUCH higher esteem, because they were ARTISTS, not just pop stars(or in their case, rock stars). Now? Having THAT kind of respect from so many people isn't something you should take for granted, yet U2 are risking that respect in their desperation to stay in the Top 40. Ironically, the kind of music they're making to get in the Top 40 is the same music that is causing so many of the aforementioned Alternative Rock radio stations to lose respect for U2 and NOT play their music.
I hope what I've said made some sense.
In the 90s, as late is 1998 and 1999, I would hear U2 songs - as old as SBS and as recent as Sweetest Thing(Single Mix) with UF/JT/AB stuff in between - on the radio ALL the friggen' time. The radio stations I speak of were of course local Alternative Rock radio stations. Now? Not only do MANY of these stations shy away from the newer material, they don't even play the OLDER stuff much anymore either. I really think that the radio industry have lost that certain amount of respect that they used to have for U2. I think that's a big part of why U2's singles don't do so well anymore.
And critically? To tell the truth I'm surprised that Rolling Stone gave ATYCLB the glowing reviews it did back in 2000. But, as we all know, Rolling Stone is no longer the great music magazine it once was. I don't think the RS of 1993 would speak kindly of the U2 of 2005.
What this all comes down to is that while U2 aren't risking record sales or money, they are risking RESPECT. The way I like to put it is this: In America, we have a network called the Bravo Network. The Bravo Network, when it's not airing 'Queer Eye For The Straigth Guy' episodes, focuses on the Fine Arts. Three and Four star movies, 'Inside The Actor's Studio' where the best actors and actresses in the world(well, for the first 7 or 8 years of it anyway) are interviewed in front of acting/directing students, and the exploration of the most renouned acts of Pop and Rock music, among other thigns - that kind of thing. And there are other TV networks here and there that focus on the Fine Arts as well. If U2 had retired in 1999(or continued to be the band they were up until then), I think they'd be an automatic for this and other networks that focus on the Fine Arts, but now? Now I don't feel like U2 is so focused on the 'Fine Art' or even just the 'art' aspect of it anymore. And if they're not focused on it, why should networks dedicated to Fine Arts be focused on U2?
What I'm trying to say is, U2 can sell 10 million copies, but so can Britany Spears and Usher. But in the past U2 would be regarded in MUCH higher esteem, because they were ARTISTS, not just pop stars(or in their case, rock stars). Now? Having THAT kind of respect from so many people isn't something you should take for granted, yet U2 are risking that respect in their desperation to stay in the Top 40. Ironically, the kind of music they're making to get in the Top 40 is the same music that is causing so many of the aforementioned Alternative Rock radio stations to lose respect for U2 and NOT play their music.
I hope what I've said made some sense.
Zoots
Blue Crack Supplier
roy said:
You know something... your guess is as good as mine. I don't claim to know all the facts. We are just the fans, what do we know? I just say it like 'I' see it. It's not writ in stone.
But what do you mean.. 1984? With UF? War was a monster hit.. wasn't it?
Zoots
Blue Crack Supplier
namkcuR said:
Exactly!!!
You put it better than I did.... They used to be artists, not top 40 rock stars!
U2Man
ONE love, blood, life
roy said:
It's part of their motivation, just like it is their motivation for touring right now. Who would want to be away from their families for a whole year, doing largely the same thing each night, if they weren't given something in return? Don't you think Edge would have decided to stay at home if he was told that he would be paid ZERO for touring?
Considering making albums....I do think U2 nowadays - especially Bono, perhaps - is more afraid of not staying famous, popular etc., than previously. Their goal seems to have changed a little. In the past they seemed to always want to explore new musical territory, now it seems their objective is to stay on the charts and still be thought of as a great rock band. Not that there's anything wrong with that, though, it just seems pretty obvious
Zoots
Blue Crack Supplier
U2Man said:
yeah.. I don't know if achieving both those things is really possible in this day and age. I mean the Beatles did it.. right? But they were among the first.. so...
why do you think pearl jam, radiohead and REM are so religiously avoiding the charts?
First off, there is nothing wrong with a band wanting to make money and be in the charts. Any band that tells you they want neither is bullshitting you.
Once again, I refer back to this wonderful interview with Bono from earlier this year:
http://www.interference.com/u2128132/index.html
Second, knowing that shooting for money or the charts in the midst of making music is not evil, please don't think that this is somehow magically new to post-90s U2:
1. From the day they signed Paul McGuinness, the U2 organization has been carefully and decisively run in all matters, both business-wise and musically.
2. All four members have said at one time or another that when they formed the band 29 years ago, they formed it with the punk goal of taking down "mainstream music" by getting on the mainstream charts.
3. Read any story on the creation of JT that mentions the millions of B-sides & unreleased songs from that era and you will find that they were looking for singles even then. Sure, they were also looking for theme--but there are themes to these last two albums, as well (and if you don't see them, you're not looking).
4. U2 were ecstatic when they finally got their first #1 US single via JT. They were also ecstatic to be on the cover of Time.
5. For all the artsiness and experimentation of the 90s, U2 were still very business-oriented. The Flanagan book clearly outlines and foreshadows U2's iPod deal, ten years early, describing how U2 recognized the importance of owning/partnering with the best hardware that would play their software (their music). If you believe in "selling out," then U2 were thinking about it even in the midst of their "anti-sell-out"/experimental phase.
This money thing is not new. And it's not bad or wrong. Bands that talk about "selling out" are lame-ass bands that simply haven't made it yet.
As for the "mainstream" debate, I know several people who listened to ATYCLB and HDAAB and said that there were only one or two songs on each that were radio-worthy. Lo and behold, there are several from each. These albums are only slightly more mainstream than JT was in the 80s (in the wake of Madonna, Michael Jackson, and other crap), and much less so than Boy or War were in their day. The reason so many of their songs get on the radio and become mainstream is because it's U2, and they make good music that sticks with people and defines its own corner of mainstream. That's one of the many, many things that makes U2 great.
Once again, I refer back to this wonderful interview with Bono from earlier this year:
http://www.interference.com/u2128132/index.html
Second, knowing that shooting for money or the charts in the midst of making music is not evil, please don't think that this is somehow magically new to post-90s U2:
1. From the day they signed Paul McGuinness, the U2 organization has been carefully and decisively run in all matters, both business-wise and musically.
2. All four members have said at one time or another that when they formed the band 29 years ago, they formed it with the punk goal of taking down "mainstream music" by getting on the mainstream charts.
3. Read any story on the creation of JT that mentions the millions of B-sides & unreleased songs from that era and you will find that they were looking for singles even then. Sure, they were also looking for theme--but there are themes to these last two albums, as well (and if you don't see them, you're not looking).
4. U2 were ecstatic when they finally got their first #1 US single via JT. They were also ecstatic to be on the cover of Time.
5. For all the artsiness and experimentation of the 90s, U2 were still very business-oriented. The Flanagan book clearly outlines and foreshadows U2's iPod deal, ten years early, describing how U2 recognized the importance of owning/partnering with the best hardware that would play their software (their music). If you believe in "selling out," then U2 were thinking about it even in the midst of their "anti-sell-out"/experimental phase.
This money thing is not new. And it's not bad or wrong. Bands that talk about "selling out" are lame-ass bands that simply haven't made it yet.
As for the "mainstream" debate, I know several people who listened to ATYCLB and HDAAB and said that there were only one or two songs on each that were radio-worthy. Lo and behold, there are several from each. These albums are only slightly more mainstream than JT was in the 80s (in the wake of Madonna, Michael Jackson, and other crap), and much less so than Boy or War were in their day. The reason so many of their songs get on the radio and become mainstream is because it's U2, and they make good music that sticks with people and defines its own corner of mainstream. That's one of the many, many things that makes U2 great.
Last edited:
U2Man
ONE love, blood, life
Zootlesque said:
yeah.. I don't know if achieving both those things is really possible in this day and age. I mean the Beatles did it.. right? But they were among the first.. so...
why do you think pearl jam, radiohead and REM are so religiously avoiding the charts?
I don't necessarily see a conflict here, not even today. Catchy music that makes it to the charts doesn't HAVE to be crap. Beatles, as you mention yourself, is the best example of this.
My guess is that if R.E.M. could make another "Losing My Religion" or "Everybody Hurts" today, they would do it.
roy
Refugee
namkcuR said:
Yes, but unlike the Pop stars you've quoted U2's ATYCLB & HTDAAB received mostly glowing reviews from numerous media critic sources (not just Rolling Stone):
http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists/u2/howtodismantleanatomicbomb/#critics
http://www.metacritic.com/music/artists/u2/allthatyoucantleavebehind
It seems that U2 is still held in very high esteem, probably higher than when Pop was released (although I also love this album).
U2Man said:
I don't necessarily see a conflict here, not even today. Catchy music that makes it to the charts doesn't HAVE to be crap. Beatles, as you mention yourself, is the best example of this.
My guess is that if R.E.M. could make another "Losing My Religion" or "Everybody Hurts" today, they would do it.
Right on.
U2Man
ONE love, blood, life
Utoo, are you a boy or a girl? 
U2Man
ONE love, blood, life
Utoo said:
Damn.
If you were a girl, I would have been in
with you. Now I just think you're really nice guy with some splendid posts that I'm in love with U2Man said:
Damn.
If you were a girl, I would have been in
Aw, shucks!
It's because I gave you the thumbs-up smilie, isn't it?
U2Man
ONE love, blood, life
Utoo said:
Aw, shucks!
It's because I gave you the thumbs-up smilie, isn't it?
Yeah, the world can be so cruel sometimes
and no, no, no....it's not just because of one thumbs-up smiley. I'm not that cheap.
Last edited:
U2Man said:
And why not? It can be done.
I really think the idea that rock bands should avoid popularity like the plague is silly, least of all the kind with a strong populist trait like U2. Don't be in your own niche, as they said.
The thing that happened is that it's gotten hard for a gang of 40+ year olds to keep the popularity in the ageist society in US, with the arrival of urban music and the attention of music labels at the MTV/TRL generation. Only in US though, and the band is doing beter on airplay charts than it does in sales - I'd take being the most played artist over best selling anytime.
If you're not out there on the radio, not keeping touch with the younger audiences and the new music influences, you're a dinosaur. That's what they're trying to prevent, and I think Bono is right on in his views on rock music in that infamous Kot interview.
I don't think there's any "street cred" to keep, not after you've been no.1 with your album and had two no.1 singles in US and have the biggest tour of the year.
There is no comparison with a band like rem, radiohead or pearl jam, who do things their own way. (all of whom were and are popular anyway)
As for top 40 - always been there, what with their soaring melodies and big choruses. Promoting your music, as they always did, of course also helps.
Ironic though, the "alternative" U2 of the 90s had bigger hits than the "pop" U2 of this decade.
Last edited:
U2Man
ONE love, blood, life
Utoo said:
Absolutely. You either find a girl and you have to convert her into a huge U2 fan, or you find a huge U2 fan and he's not a girl..
Is there any way I could convert you into a girl?
the tourist
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2003
- Messages
- 27,919
With enough money and consent....
Seeing as how I only got married a few months ago, I think my wife would be pretty upset if I turned into a girl now...
Similar threads
