"Fuck Up The Mainstream"

[gherman]

YouTube - Bono - '94 Grammy Acceptance Speech *Uncensored*

Oh, those were the days...

 

[Zoots]

Alternative, all right...



I love that video. I have it bookmarked already.

 

[digitize]

I miss Zoo era.

 

[U2girl]

Nice comment on Youtube

"the funny thing about this vid is not the cursing, it's that U2, who by this time was one of the most mainstream acts going, who were tearing up the states with the biggest, loudest, best tour since the '72 Stones, won an "Alternative Record of the Year" award. notice Bono was sort of perplexed at this..."

 

[Zoots]

Well, but Zooropa was definitely a WTF musically after Achtung even though both records are somewhat similar. I guess that's what makes it alternative.

 

[U2opra]

I love it when Bono is outspoken.

 

[doctorwho]

I never had a problem with "Zooropa" winning that award for I felt it was indeed the most "alternative" album that year. Other artists, like Smashing Pumpkins, really were "mainstream" at that point in time, so them winning would be just as odd as U2 winning. More importantly, though, "Zooropa" really was out there - it really was alternative. There isn't any single song on that album that one would describe as "radio-friendly" (other than, maybe, "Stay" and even that didn't do all that well). Songs like "Lemon" and "Daddy's Gonna Pay..." and "Numb" are really revolutionary and were way out there for U2 as well as all the other so-called "alternative" artists. So I'm glad U2 won. And it was a good speech.

Of course, being alternative only goes so far. U2 realized this and changed directions with ATYCLB. Still, when ATYCLB was released on '00, they were still alternative. Nothing in '00 sounded like ATYCLB. That was still the era of boy bands and pop girls. R&B was huge. Rock was barely noticed - yet U2 broke through. So while we look at ATYCLB as very "mainstream" and "safe", for the time it was released, it really wasn't. The same is true for HTDAAB. Right before that album was released, I recall a comment from Edge where his daughter doubted the album, stating that HTDAAB didn't sound like anything she heard on the radio. Once again, alternative. This was also true way back in 1987 when JT was released. Nothing in '87 sounded like JT. And come '92, when grunge music exploded, we have U2's AB and the ZOO TV tour succeeding brilliantly.

That is what makes U2 special - they seem to shift the mainstream with each release.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

I have a very strong feeling it's about to happen again....

 

[BonoIsMyMuse]

I doubt it. I think U2 has become far too corporate to take risks like that again.

 

[Addicted To Bad]

I doubt it. I think U2 has become far too corporate to take risks like that again.

I think Bono will never change.. He is authentic and he says what he feels wherever he is. That´s why he is Bono and he always knows everything is gonna be fine ... This is one of his best qualities. He makes difference!!

 

[doctorwho]

I doubt it. I think U2 has become far too corporate to take risks like that again.

See, I really have problems with these sweeping, and forgive me, rather banal comments.

Mainstream? Corporate? U2 are just as corporate now as they were back in the early 80's, when the had T-shirts and video of their concerts and singles and remixes (yes, remixes). I mean, they released "Wide Awake...", a 4-track EP between albums. We praise "Wide Awake..." now, but if U2 released a little 4-track EP right this very moment, we'd all claim how "corporate" they were and how money-hungry they are. We zoom on in the iPod commercial, completely and conveniently forgetting that Larry did a Harley commercial back in the 80's! We poke fun at their U.S. TV appearances now, forgetting how often they appeared on Irish and UK TV back in the 80's. I see zero difference between now and then. U2 were always about being the biggest band and that hasn't changed. And part of being big is working within the corporate system. KISS, yes, KISS, knew this back in the 70's. They had action figures of themselves, along with lunch-boxes and crappy TV shows. Yet, now, they are still respected as "rock gods". Working within the system gains necessary exposure to ultimately get your message out. U2 learned this early on - and Bono is now fully exploiting this fact for DATA.

As for quality of music, just as I wrote above, when ATYCLB and HTDAAB were released, they sounded like nothing on the radio at the time. So what exactly makes them "safe" releases? The one time U2 were "safe", oddly and perhaps ironically enough, was with "Pop". U2 tried to emulate sounds they heard by other artists (like Prodigy and the Chemical Bros.). Then they mixed that in with Beatle-esque tracks. We all know the result. In other words, when U2 tries to blend in, they don't succeed nearly as well as when they go their own paths.

So please don't dismiss them as being "corporate" and afraid of change, because the only evidence I've seen of this came in 1997, from an album that people here claim is so "different".

 

[popacrobat]

See, I really have problems with these sweeping, and forgive me, rather banal comments.

Mainstream? Corporate? U2 are just as corporate now as they were back in the early 80's, when the had T-shirts and video of their concerts and singles and remixes (yes, remixes). I mean, they released "Wide Awake...", a 4-track EP between albums. We praise "Wide Awake..." now, but if U2 released a little 4-track EP right this very moment, we'd all claim how "corporate" they were and how money-hungry they are. We zoom on in the iPod commercial, completely and conveniently forgetting that Larry did a Harley commercial back in the 80's! We poke fun at their U.S. TV appearances now, forgetting how often they appeared on Irish and UK TV back in the 80's. I see zero difference between now and then. U2 were always about being the biggest band and that hasn't changed. And part of being big is working within the corporate system. KISS, yes, KISS, new this back in the 70's. They had action figures of themselves, along with lunch-boxes and crappy TV shows. Yet, now, they are still respected as "rock gods". Working within the system gains necessary exposure to ultimately get your message out. U2 learned this early on - and Bono is now fully exploiting this fact for DATA.

As for quality of music, just as I wrote above, when ATYCLB and HTDAAB were released, they sounded like nothing on the radio at the time. So what exactly makes them "safe" releases? The one time U2 were "safe", oddly and perhaps ironically enough, was with "Pop". U2 tried to emulate sounds they heard by other artists (like Prodigy and the Chemical Bros.). Then they mixed that in with Beatle-esque tracks. We all know the result. In other words, when U2 tries to blend in, they don't succeed nearly as well as when they go their own paths.

So please don't dismiss them as being "corporate" and afraid of change, because the only evidence I've seen of this came in 1997, from an album that people here claim is so "different".

I agree with everything you've said here. Excellent post.

 

[doctorwho]

I agree with everything you've said here. Excellent post.

Thank you.

And I'd like to add the Beatles to this discussion. This group had TV exposure, movies - many movies in fact - lunch boxes, cartoons (!) and magazines. They were incredibly commercial. Yet, the Beatles are revered as an artist truly above the mainstream. Why? Because the Beatles wrote music that was different for the given era they were in. The music in the 60's changed fast. The only other time I saw the mainstream change so fast was from about '75-'85, when radio went from opera rock to disco to punk to new wave to big hair bands! These days, corporations try to squeeze out every dollar they can from a given act before dumping them for the next big thing. But bands that change and flow not only with the times, but slightly ahead of the times, succeed. The Beatles knew this - U2 does too. Being just a step ahead has allowed U2 to remain relevant and successful.

So yes, they are "corporate" - that's not such a bad thing. Many of us work for companies and corporations, either directly or indirectly. It's what we do with our jobs that makes the difference. We can be sheep or we can be slightly ahead of the game, challenging within the system. This is where the real revolutions can occur. If one is too radical, one is simply dismissed.

 

[Utoo]

See, I really have problems with these sweeping, and forgive me, rather banal comments.

Mainstream? Corporate? U2 are just as corporate now as they were back in the early 80's, when the had T-shirts and video of their concerts and singles and remixes (yes, remixes). I mean, they released "Wide Awake...", a 4-track EP between albums. We praise "Wide Awake..." now, but if U2 released a little 4-track EP right this very moment, we'd all claim how "corporate" they were and how money-hungry they are. We zoom on in the iPod commercial, completely and conveniently forgetting that Larry did a Harley commercial back in the 80's! We poke fun at their U.S. TV appearances now, forgetting how often they appeared on Irish and UK TV back in the 80's. I see zero difference between now and then. U2 were always about being the biggest band and that hasn't changed. And part of being big is working within the corporate system. KISS, yes, KISS, knew this back in the 70's. They had action figures of themselves, along with lunch-boxes and crappy TV shows. Yet, now, they are still respected as "rock gods". Working within the system gains necessary exposure to ultimately get your message out. U2 learned this early on - and Bono is now fully exploiting this fact for DATA.

As for quality of music, just as I wrote above, when ATYCLB and HTDAAB were released, they sounded like nothing on the radio at the time. So what exactly makes them "safe" releases? The one time U2 were "safe", oddly and perhaps ironically enough, was with "Pop". U2 tried to emulate sounds they heard by other artists (like Prodigy and the Chemical Bros.). Then they mixed that in with Beatle-esque tracks. We all know the result. In other words, when U2 tries to blend in, they don't succeed nearly as well as when they go their own paths.

So please don't dismiss them as being "corporate" and afraid of change, because the only evidence I've seen of this came in 1997, from an album that people here claim is so "different".

This one post practically sums up every debate ever had on Interference, and presents the right side of each.

 

[U2girl]

Well, but Zooropa was definitely a WTF musically after Achtung even though both records are somewhat similar. I guess that's what makes it alternative.

Maybe, but judging from the comments they were up against REM, Nirvana and Smashing Pumpkins (Automatic for the people/In Utero/Siamese Dream). It's also a bizzare speech since the follow up albums were very much latching onto sounds coming into the mainstream

Wouldn't all of those be considered more alternative bands ? Even Bono seemed surprised.

Well said, doctorwho.

 

[Zoots]

The one time U2 were "safe", oddly and perhaps ironically enough, was with "Pop". U2 tried to emulate sounds they heard by other artists (like Prodigy and the Chemical Bros.).

This bullshit has to stop once and for all. The only track on Pop that sounds like the Prodigy or Chem Bros. is Mofo. And maybe Discotheque to an extent. Everything else was unique, interesting and different. Would more people buy an album with songs like Velvet Dress or an album with songs like Kite??? Gimme a break!

 

[djerdap]

I got a bittersweet feeling while watching the clip.

Ah, too bad they went the other way.

 

[BVS]

Nostalgia is a dangerous drug...

 

[Saracene]

That statement always did strike me as an incredibly pompous thing to say.

Yes, it's Bono, and I love the guy, and that's the kind of thing he'd say, but still.

 

[Utoo]

Well, it's amazing what a little alcohol in the system will do for ya

 

[BonoIsMyMuse]

I just don't feel like U2 takes risks anymore the way they did when they reinvented themselves in the early 90s. I'm not saying they're not capable of such changes again, because creatively I certainly think they are, but I've felt like something has been holding them back these last few years, and I'm beginning to think it's U2 the business, to some degree at least, as well as the role Bono has come to play in activism and politics. Let's be realistic: if Bono called the president during a concert now, the president would probably accept his call. U2 has more power and influence than ever to fuck up the mainstream, both in terms of the music itself and of the music industry, but they've become the mainstream. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but with it has come certain limitations.

I'd love it if their new album proves me wrong, if they make bold creative choices even if it means not raking in millions. If U2 records it, people will buy it, and people will always go see them play. That's all the more reason to experiment, I think, but I'm skeptical that they will. I enjoyed HTDAAB and the last tour, and I still count U2 as one of my favorite bands, but I feel like there's so much more they're capable of. I put the in my previous post because I miss that U2, the one that found ways to surprise me. I think they could blaze a lot of new paths--how music is sold, how bands can pull off major tours that are still environmentally-friendly, how bands use the internet, not to mention how to strengthen the bond Bono has already helped to create between popular culture and youth activism. Will they blaze those paths, though?

 

[BonoIsMyMuse]

This bullshit has to stop once and for all. The only track on Pop that sounds like the Prodigy or Chem Bros. is Mofo. And maybe Discotheque to an extent. Everything else was unique, interesting and different. Would more people buy an album with songs like Velvet Dress or an album with songs like Kite??? Gimme a break!

A lot of the ridiculousness of Pop and Popmart was the band poking fun at how ridiculous our culture was becoming. But if people took the time to get past that layer, that sound that nobody had heard from U2 before, they would've seen that lyrically, Pop is maybe U2's most personal album. Look at songs like Mofo, Gone, and Wake Up Dead Man. Even now, 11 years after the album's release, I still love that contrast. It's hard to imagine that Bono isn't still struggling with those same things now, considering our culture hasn't gotten any less ridiculous. I'd love to see him writing about those same themes now.

 

[Salome]

when you fuck up the mainstream you become part of it
Nirvana became the flipping mainstream at some point

to expect a band to re-invent itself everey single time over a 30 year career is absically just unreasonable
in a way it says more about the person expecting it than about a band

I think it is very shortsighted to pretend every decision from 89-99 was a deeply artistic one and every decision made since a corporate one
it's always been a mix and the mix has hardly changed

the only thing has changed actually sort of brings me back to the start of this post
if you want to fuck up the mainstream you need to appeal to enough people fro them to back you in your work
I think some people have conveniently forgotten that U2 was on the verge of becoming quite irrelevant after POP and POPMart because of lack of appeal
usually you win people over first and then you change their minds, not the other way about
some patience is needed


btw: excellent post doctorwho

 

[Zoots]

I just don't feel like U2 takes risks anymore the way they did when they reinvented themselves in the early 90s. I'm not saying they're not capable of such changes again, because creatively I certainly think they are, but I've felt like something has been holding them back these last few years, and I'm beginning to think it's U2 the business, to some degree at least, as well as the role Bono has come to play in activism and politics. Let's be realistic: if Bono called the president during a concert now, the president would probably accept his call. U2 has more power and influence than ever to fuck up the mainstream, both in terms of the music itself and of the music industry, but they've become the mainstream. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but with it has come certain limitations.

I'd love it if their new album proves me wrong, if they make bold creative choices even if it means not raking in millions. If U2 records it, people will buy it, and people will always go see them play. That's all the more reason to experiment, I think, but I'm skeptical that they will. I enjoyed HTDAAB and the last tour, and I still count U2 as one of my favorite bands, but I feel like there's so much more they're capable of. I put the in my previous post because I miss that U2, the one that found ways to surprise me. I think they could blaze a lot of new paths--how music is sold, how bands can pull off major tours that are still environmentally-friendly, how bands use the internet, not to mention how to strengthen the bond Bono has already helped to create between popular culture and youth activism. Will they blaze those paths, though?

I agree with every syllable in this post! including the part where you say you enjoyed the last album and tour. I did too. But they're capable of so much more! It's like they're afraid to take risks or surprise us. I'm cautiously optimistic about the new album though.

 

[U2girl]

I think they could blaze a lot of new paths--how music is sold, how bands can pull off major tours that are still environmentally-friendly, how bands use the internet, not to mention how to strengthen the bond Bono has already helped to create between popular culture and youth activism.

I agree Bono of this decade has messed with the mainstream more than Bono of the 80's and 90's, but seems like you're asking a whole lot from a mere rock band.

Rather than that, I think some kind of company, will come up with all those ideas. Such as LiveNation dealing with many major artists.

 

[GirlsAloudFan]

Bono is cool.

 

[Zoots]

More nostalgia:

YouTube - U2 - Zoo TV - Opening Night (1992)

Watch especially from the 3:00 min mark.

We might lose some of the pop kids but... we don't need them! I'm gonna go.

How cool was this guy??!! even if it was just an act.

 

[U2girl]

Not that pop kids quote again - yes, great response to a valid question on setlists, Fly.

 

[Zoots]

He was just faking the coolness, anyway! The bastard! <--- said with British accent for effect.

 

[BonoIsMyMuse]

I agree Bono of this decade has messed with the mainstream more than Bono of the 80's and 90's, but seems like you're asking a whole lot from a mere rock band.

Rather than that, I think some kind of company, will come up with all those ideas. Such as LiveNation dealing with many major artists.

I'm only basing my expectations on what I've seen U2 do in the past. I also really think change is going to have to come from an artist or artists. Media conglomerates like LiveNation, Ticketmaster, and the like are businesses, and as businesses, profits are their number one concern.