Clayton Hints of New Direction on Next Record

[ZeroDude]

At least they're still making good music

The best stuff only we'll get our hands on, the general populace are the ones being fooled, screwed over et al

 

[the tourist]

Then we disagree as well.

New Year's Day, Two Hearts Beat As One, The Unforgettable Fire(the song), Promenade, Bad, Elvis Presley And America, Still Haven't Found, With Or Without You, Bullet The Blue Sky, Running To Stand Still, One Tree Hill, Exit, Zoo Station, Until The End Of The World, The Fly, Mysterious Ways, Ultraviolet, Acrobat, the whole Zooropa record, the whole Pop record, all Alternative. U2 were alternative from 1983-1999 in my book.

To me, those are all pop, rock, and electronica (since I'm of the firm belief that alternative is not a genre of music, but simply what people call things that branch into more than one musical category).

 

[Earnie Shavers]

To me, those are all pop, rock, and electronica (since I'm of the firm belief that alternative is not a genre of music, but simply what people call things that branch into more than one musical category).

Yes, it's not a genre or style. It's just an umbrella term for music (across all genres and styles) that doesn't quite fit in the 'mainstream'.

 

[the tourist]

Yes, it's not a genre or style. It's just an umbrella term for music (across all genres and styles) that doesn't quite fit in the 'mainstream'.

I guess I just don't see how With Or Without You doesn't fit into the mainstream. *shrugs*

 

[U2DMfan]

I guess I just don't see how With Or Without You doesn't fit into the mainstream. *shrugs*

I wouldnt argue a huge case for that song being "alternative" but in 1987, as far as songs on the radio it was unlike most everything at the time. That infinite guitar sound had never been on a song that cracked the top 40, much less anywhere else. Also Edge's trademark guitar, very late in the song and it's essentially bass driven for the most part. So in that sense it was alternative to the mainstream at the time, while being a huge hit. I wouldn't take a big issue either way. It's a love song with basic pop elements, but at the time it was a bit more progressive than it seems 18 years later.

 

[the tourist]

Does that make Sgt. Pepper's "alternative"? Since their songs sounded like nothing else that was on the top 40? I guess that means The Beatles weren't a rock band. Or a pop band.

 

[bsp77]

Does that make Sgt. Pepper's "alternative"? Since their songs sounded like nothing else that was on the top 40? I guess that means The Beatles weren't a rock band. Or a pop band.

Alright, this is getting stupid. Alternative has only existed since the early 80's and it is a genre of music. It is kind of a "catch-all" and maybe not an appropriate term. But the name still exists whether we like it or not, and it does refer to a very broad genre of music. And yes, With or Without You is alternative. It may have been unbelievably successful but still fits within the genre of Alternative.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

But you know that 99% of people will laugh at you if you described U2 as an 'alternative' band. That's what I mean about it being an MTVism or an image thing more than a clearly defined genre or style. The With or Without You example above is correct. Technically it's very alternative/progressive, yet most would consider it one of the biggest mainstream pop hits of the last two decades (if not in sales, in instant recognisability). So, I think my point is, you can create 'alternative' definitions and examples, but they are pretty individual from person to person, so it's not really worth arguing one way or another on it for too long.

 

[Layton]

Layton, I'm not against their current policy of 'doing something' and 'reaching every individual' with soulful/heartfelt songs! Good for them if they're using music as a force for positive change through the prism of the individual!!! My point (that you seemed to have missed) is that the song quality post 2000 just isn't on par with that of pre-2000!

I purposely avoided the song quality part of the equation because I respect your tastes. As usual, I'm on about some of the conclusions that are drawn by the ones who are disappointed by the quality. I think sales-minded, going through the motions, radio-friendly and nostalgic, to name a few are bad conclusions regarding U2's motivation behind these 'subpar' songs. I think there is sufficient thematic evidence to disprove those conclusions. Of course, that doesn't mean the current stuff is above criticism. I think HTDAAB has its moments where the artistic execution isn't great, but I think they're more attributable to just missing their mark than to some money-hungry, resting on your laurels conclusion.

 

[Tyagu_Anaykus]

boy this is getting interesting

 

[the tourist]

I just want to state, for the record, that U2's music is not the same genre as Sixpence None The Richer (an "alternative" band) or Radiohead (another "alternative" band). Maybe one or two songs here and there match. But for the most part, it doesn't. I guess alternative means a conglomoration of rock, pop, electronica, folk, grunge, funk, etc. So why not just call the genre "music" instead of "alternative" since the "alternative" genre seems to encompass all music.

 

[phanan]

And yes, With or Without You is alternative. It may have been unbelievably successful but still fits within the genre of Alternative.

It may have started out as alternative, but when it crossed over and became a major smash, I don't know if it can be termed as alternative anymore. But I know what you're saying.

 

[bsp77]

It may have started out as alternative, but when it crossed over and became a major smash, I don't know if it can be termed as alternative anymore. But I know what you're saying.

Alternative is not based on whether it is mainstream or underground. It started out underground and that is why it was called alternative, but alternative music became mainstream. However, the style of music is still called alternative. The problem is the definition of alternative is ridiculously broad and really does not make any sense.

 

[thrillme]

I just want to state, for the record, that U2's music is not the same genre as Sixpence None The Richer (an "alternative" band) or Radiohead (another "alternative" band). Maybe one or two songs here and there match. But for the most part, it doesn't. I guess alternative means a conglomoration of rock, pop, electronica, folk, grunge, funk, etc. So why not just call the genre "music" instead of "alternative" since the "alternative" genre seems to encompass all music.

I suppose because some people like labels, want things to be in "neat little boxes."

"If you were to file us under anything in a record shop, I suppose it would have to be under 'rock.' But I think that is a false divide. 'Rock' and 'pop' cross over in so many places that I don't think you can start putting bands in neat little boxes like that."--Adam in 1983.

 

[Layton]

Alternative Rock= Strong dosage of unique brought to a tried and true musical medium.

That's my take. I have to emphasize the word 'strong', though. Everybody or band is unique to some degree, but like I said it has to be a STRONG dosage to be considered alternative, in my book.

By my criteria, U2 easily qualifies as alternative. I don't think anybody could claim they are lacking a strong dosage of uniqueness. Taken alone, Edge has got to be on the short list of most unique rock guitarists. Not many can claim an instant identifiability with a sound and feeling. Since they've been at this so long, I'd say they're alternative legends (Zoomerang never came back to argue this. So it must be true----lol). I'll go one step further and call them one of the Godfathers of Alternative Rock. They and other '80's cohorts (REM, Replacements, Sonic Youth, Smiths, etc.) are the precursors to the Alternative boom on radio that came about due to the Seattle scene.

Currently, I'd say that Alternative Rock has become an institution and a big part of the establishment. This means that Rock is dying for an alternative to Alternative. No current bands are really providing this, though. That's not to say that bands aren't pushing the boundaries or being really creative. Take Radiohead for example. Not many push the boundaries like they do. Thing is, they push so far (Kid A) that you almost completely lose any identity with Rock. This brings us to some compelling questions How malleable is the Rock medium? How much uniqueness can it take before it ceases to be Rock?

Some might not like to think this, but Rock has it's limits. It can only take so much uniqueness and creativity. Thus, the forces that instigated Alternative Rock are also killing Rock, or at least relegating it to 'best days are over' status.

Interestingly, I think RH are in the midst of a dilemma U2 faced during the making of Pop. Are they a rock band or not? We know what U2 chose. RH havn't quite made up their minds yet. U2 realized that by pushing the boundaries so far, they were contributing to the death of Rock (and maybe the death of themselves). So they came back and made their stance with a newfound love and appreciation for the power of Rock. U2 faced the reality that they are a Rock band and decided to fight for their right to be one in today's world.

 

[the tourist]

I suppose because some people like labels, want things to be in "neat little boxes."

"If you were to file us under anything in a record shop, I suppose it would have to be under 'rock.' But I think that is a false divide. 'Rock' and 'pop' cross over in so many places that I don't think you can start putting bands in neat little boxes like that."--Adam in 1983.

Right. So why not just call it pop-rock? To me, With Or Without You encompasses a pop song. Catchy melody, 1950's style chord progression, verse-chorus-verse-chorus-bridge-chorus, anthemic.... But I guess rock isn't that way, right? Rock seems to only exist within bands like Aerosmith and Led Zeppelin and Guns n Roses, or so I'm led to believe by statements I've read by people in this thread. Then again, I'd label each of those bands as either "hard rock" or "classic rock". I think those are fitting titles. I think "alternative" is a horrible title. Why not call bands what they are? Like U2 is pop-rock. Radiohead is experimental-rock. Weezer is geek-rock. At least those things somewhat describe the music, whereas alternative is less descriptive and more just the image of cool. Or something.

 

[ZeroDude]

The Power Of Rock?

I'm picturing a cheesy hair metal song

 

[Mud in the Sand]

Expect a dissapoing album. U2 is no Depeche Mode, the true innovators of sound!

 

[GibsonGirl]

Expect a dissapoing album. U2 is no Depeche Mode, the true innovators of sound!

 

[U2FanPeter]

Have U2 ever been nominated for a "Best Alternative" Grammy?

 

[U2DMfan]

Have U2 ever been nominated for a "Best Alternative" Grammy?

Zooropa won best alt album in 1994

 

[U2DMfan]

Like U2 is pop-rock. Radiohead is experimental-rock. Weezer is geek-rock.

If U2 is pop rock then so is Radiohead and certainly Weezer.

They are basically doing the same things, not on every song, or every album but they write pretty much in the style of pop music.

And on the note, but not directed towards tourists' point/post, moreover an overall view on labels and such...

I think people get misdirected when they start pretending that bands liek Radiohead are so far out on the limb or something. They are doing nothing more than the Beatles did in 1967 or Pink Floyd in 68 or U2 in 1991 and so on. A brand pf pop music with all kinds of influences and sounds. It just so happens that right now, U2 isn't incorporating many unique sounds to their brand of pop rock.

That's basically the only difference between them and Radiohead sonically right now.In the past, cite Kid A and Amnesiac and you have Zooropa and Passengers. POP is to Hail to the Theif as Pable Honey is to ATYCLB and The Bends is to HTDAAB. More or less, not directly. They are all taking what the Beatles did and trying to make it different. U2 are in the mode to emulate them, Radiohead will hit this eventually. They might do it moreso "behind closed doors" and not take all the grief for U2 wanting to advertise their back to basics approach. I love Radiohead, one of my top 5 bands but they are not reinventing the wheel either.

 

[U2DMfan]

Does that make Sgt. Pepper's "alternative"? Since their songs sounded like nothing else that was on the top 40? I guess that means The Beatles weren't a rock band. Or a pop band.

It's all the same thing, the progressive side of mainstream rock and roll. With or Without You was part of that ideal in 1987. I used "alternative" because that's the phrase you guys were using. I couldn't possibly care less what it's called.

Sgt Peppers was supposedly part of "psychedelic rock" or whatever phrase was the current fad. Don't draw too many assumptions from what I said. The correct term in 1987 might have been 'new wave' or another faddish phrase to describe the modern rock of the era. Actually I think "modern rock" is one in and of itself. Nowadays it's called "indie". In 2010, there will be another line of bands doing basically the same thing that saw it's genesis on SGt Peppers and Pet Sounds and the public will be calling it differently. This is the popular music machine at work, the cycle continues.

It's just compartamentalization (sp?) for purposes of ease. As I said in the above post, it's basically all coming from the same tree. Something truly progressive and "experimental", you aren't going to hear anywhere on MTV or any corporate radio. Coldplay are an "alternative" to Nickelback, what what else, really? I just think it means the "new" shit.

 

[bsp77]

Expect a dissapoing album. U2 is no Depeche Mode, the true innovators of sound!

Who are you?

 

[Zoots]

Expect a dissapoing album. U2 is no Depeche Mode, the true innovators of sound!

I'm not necessarily agreeing with this dude but you have to admit that by 1997's Ultra, DM had a pretty kick ass fucking sound!

 

[U2DMfan]

DM rules of course, who disputes that?

'Devotional' shot by Anton Corbin is the best live music video I've ever seen, period.

Ultra was damn good, but Songs of Faith and Devotion was their Achtung Baby. Awesome.

 

[Sleep Over Jack]

Expect a dissapoing album. U2 is no Depeche Mode, the true innovators of sound!

ahahahaha

 

[i_love_adam]

Yay! Adam interview! So formal, calling him "Clayton". Then I remembered this isn't PLEBA. oh no.

I personally never believed much in describing music in words or music reviews. For example, "The rhythmic thumping of the bass" doesn't give much of an idea of the song, does it? A bass guitar is a rhythm instrument and, if it doesn't thump, does it whine? Or squeak? Obviously it's a thump. I never liked words like "experimental" either. Subjective. Subjective. Subjective.

 

[Lancemc]

Depeche Mode owe their souls to Brian Eno and the like.

 

[Hallucination]

Here's the thing. People in general tend to become a bit more contemporary as they age. Shit I'm only 27 and even now I can see how my taste has changed since my younger days. It's pretty normal and should be expected that U2 has gone back to a more traditional sound. There's nothing wrong with that. It's produced great tracks(COBL, Beautiful Day, Walk On, Kite, SYCMIOYO, Crumbs) yet people still complain because it's not "cutting edge" enough. Face it U2 may never be as experimental as they used to be. As long as they keep making great songs though I could care less. Though the idea of them trying to move in a new direction is very appealing. And by new I don't mean old ala Pop/Zooropa.