MERGED ---> Kot/Bono Interview + Gret Kot interview with Bono

[ultraviolet7]

Earnie, I don't know if this is what you meant to say but your last post gives the impression that your issue revolves around the fact U2 are indulging in a style (namely mainstream pop) you don't seem to dig.

 

[U2DMfan]

Questions, to continue the discussion, hopefully civil:

Nobody would deny that U2 changed their style, once again in 2000 and continuing to the current time.

Did they change the music because of sheer artistic motivation or need?: meaning "this is exactly the music we want to do"

Or did they change to be more relevant to the charts, music video, radio etc.?

I would say the second answer, because that seems apparent in the evidence. Meaning what U2 recorded and later re-recorded and made the album, and the bands quotes on relevance, pop music, and competing on the charts.

I honestly don't see much of an argument there, but I'll listen to what anyone has to say.

So, IMO, the musical change, while maybe the general direction the band was headed, actually became more mainstream to "compete" on the charts, radio, airplay etc.

Nobody asks the question why ultimately they changed producers after basically finishing the album in Dec 2003. I beleive it's because it wasn't mainstream enough. I use that term "mainstream" for lack of a better one. Larry said so, they played it and it didn't have the "hit", they re-recorded Vertigo, it went from raw rock, to gimmicky single.

So if this is true, and the music was altered for "relevance", which basically translate to sales among other things, then was the music compromised?

If there weren't a decided attempt at heavy promotion and even I-pod ads and all that stuff, would it be easier to swallow that the band are chasing down an artistic path? I don't think so.
I don't care about promotion, do it all you want, U2. The point is, if they weren't so weighted heavily in that direction, wouldit be easier to convince me that they are in their Beatles pop phase?

I think everything the band has said leads in this direction. Recent quotes from teh band, all add up. They are consistent with one another, be it derision of POP for certain reasons or justification of promotion or safer music, they are essentially the same reasons.

U2 are screaming "we want to be relevant"
by itself, there is nothing wrong with that premise.
If you are U2, and your idea or relvance is the charts, music televison, radio play, then your idea of relevance is to sell, sell, sell it.

So if you accept that, which I beleive to be true, the question left to answer for yourself, is "did U2 compromise the music to sell" and if so, is it even important to you? I mean, if you like the music as many do, I don't suppose it would be that important. If you aren't as enthusiastic about post -2000 U2, maybe it bothers you.

I don't care about idealistic cries "of sell-out" it's not even important, U2 hardly need another dime the rest of their lives. But in their effort to be relevant did they compromise their music?
Some people apparently feel strongly that it does.
What does it mean?

I think probably the only thing it means is that U2 are no longer "fucking up the mainstream."
They are the mainstream, and they want to be.
Why they want to be the best in an arena of garbage might be the better question. It's like Rebecca Romijn going down to teh fat farm and claiming "I am the most beautiful woman here!!!!"
While probably very true, it's hardly interesting.

In 1991, U2 were competing in the mainstream, with an album of songs, that while like all U2 music was pop-sensitive, was a rock and roll album that comparitively stacked up, creatively to the best and most innovative albums of the current time, be they in the mainstream or on the edges.

That to me, is the whole idea of fucking up the mainstream from the inside. You do it with the music. You get a record on the charts full of interestign ideas and sounds, exposing these ideas to the masses. You do it by being interesting. U2 seemed to be playing to different audiences in the past. They had their solid hardcore fanbase, who were addicted to the noise and the message, and with their pop sensibilties they were converting those stuck in the boredom of the mainstream.

So if they try and covet the masses with music that isn't so easily digestable, I think that is pretty interesting and creative. If they take an album suited for the masses to the masses, then that's all it is. Playing to their base. Their new base, the pop masses.

The questions I ask are aimed at finding out why.
Why are the doing it? The band says it because of relevancy.
I beleive them, have no reason to lie, it's entirely consistent with everything they've done.
To me, they changed their artistic direction for this "relevancy"
And it seems we are all trying to figure out what that means.
If you love the music, you probably don't give a shit.
So good for you, I wish I was there honestly.

If you don't particularly love it, it could make all the difference between falling in step with the new U2, and leaving them behind.
If I didn't care about the band's music, I wouldn't care at all.

I am interested in others perspectives. I'm not ready to throw the band under the bus, so to speak. I still love them, just like to talk about music.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

ultraviolet7, U2DMfan pretty much gives you my answer to that.
It's not meant to sound like "I hate the pop genre and therefore no matter what U2 do in that area I'll say it sucks". Honestly I have a lot of time for pop music, and if you had me write down what I think are the 50 greatest songs ever written you'd probably correctly identify about a third of them as pop.

The key word in U2DMfans post is 'compromise'.

Let's imagine Bono rang me 6 years ago and said "Earnie! We're recording a new album. We want it to be a collection of pop songs that the whole world can sing along to!" I'd say "That's great Bono, but don't let it COMPROMISE what U2 are."

That's where the debate is. Myself and many others feel that for the first time they've gone and done that. Others don't feel that way. I think there is a way that U2 could have attacked the pop charts, from the outside or the inside, that wouldn't have compromised what they are and what they've always been. I think it's a shame that they didn't choose to do that. Did they take U2's music to the pop charts, or let the pop charts take over U2's music? Following from that are all the "Why?" questions.

That's it in a nutshell.

 

[Zoots]

All I can say is..... phew! That took forever to read all your verbose replies! Anyway, great discussion! I have to say that overall, I agree with earnie shavers, typhoon, ultraviolet and zoomerang. U2 has indeed lost that special something with the last 2 albums. I can't quite describe it... but felt it when I was listening to Until The End Of The World today in my car and had an ecstatic moment right when the guitar solo ends... and I was thinking... the last 2 albums sound nice and all.. but they don't sound challenging anymore. I'm talking about the same euphoric moment of the end of Do You Feel Loved or the guitars in Gone that's missing now. Granted, they still beat the shit out of most acts played on the radio and they still write great melodies like Miracle Drug. But it all sounds so safe and dependent on the sound of past classics to ensure maximum sales... kinda music, for the most part. But as I said, it still sounds like U2 though and I know I'm gonna get their next album anyway, no matter what. It doesn't matter much but I stand by my opinion.

 

[Bono's shades]

Great posts, U2DMfan and Earnie. I've been asking myself the same questions ever since ATYCLB came out. I've been asking them even more often ever since HTDAAB came out. I remember being thrilled when U2 got so huge in 1987 because it felt like the good guys were winning at last and amid all the music irrelevancey at the time, my generation finally had its very own Beatles. Now U2 hits No. 1 on the album charts and my reaction is just "meh." It just feels like they compromised too much to get there. I know the marketing campaign for HTDAAB is considered brilliant and groundbreaking, but it's really hard to get excited about it when it was U2's music that used to be considered brilliant and groundbreaking.

It's too late for me to get off the U2 love train now after all these years, but I just wish I could say I was on board just as much because of their current work as for their past work.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I'm sitting here listening to REM's Everybody Hurts on the radio, on the Top 40 Commercial Soulless Station, and thinking "Bingo!"

 

[ShellBeThere]

I'm sitting here listening to REM's Everybody Hurts on the radio, on the Top 40 Commercial Soulless Station, and thinking "Bingo!"

what, that U2 sounds like this lately?! or is this a comment about some turn in REM's career you don't care for either?

Or are you saying u2's hurting?!

I actually like REM, but no way is that U2 is sounding like now. Everybody Hurts is not one of REMs better songs I think, it's got a fine but sort of boring musical idea to my ears anyway, and ends up droning along a bit.
The 'slow songs' U2 put out on the bomb are decidely not the same as One or LoveisBlindness or WOWY but they are *not* dull or drony to me...they have interesting ideas in them. Even Kot warmed up to OOTS...give it another listen. or don't, as you wish.

cheers!

 

[ShellBeThere]

Questions, to continue the discussion, hopefully civil:

Nobody would deny that U2 changed their style, once again in 2000 and continuing to the current time.

Did they change the music because of sheer artistic motivation or need?: meaning "this is exactly the music we want to do"

Or did they change to be more relevant to the charts, music video, radio etc.?

I would say the second answer, because that seems apparent in the evidence. Meaning what U2 recorded and later re-recorded and made the album, and the bands quotes on relevance, pop music, and competing on the charts.

I honestly don't see much of an argument there, but I'll listen to what anyone has to say.

I think one can see the argument in Bono's words from the interview. Yeah, he talks about fighting for rocknroll to be relevant, to compete in the big marketplace, the 'mainstream' if you will, with the crap and with the big production value genres which dominate now. He actually says he *likes* their bigass attitudes, admires their ambitions. I thought it was really hysterical actually, his stuff about progressive rock cutting off ears from round scrubbed faces to impress the indie press, while hiphop says what the fuck is that lol. Go out and demand to be heard dammit, fuck ghettos.

But he also talks about what one might see as two opposing 'values' in rocknroll musically, creatively. Experimentation, meandering, blowing hair versus the sparkling redhot crisp hituyouupsidethehead single. The latter was what he was aiming for with Vertigo I think, and it hit for me.
Notice he didn't mention AB when he spoke about their years of experimentation...only Zooropa Passengers and Pop. AB was different, a change in sound and feel for them, but it wasn't meandering moving out from some ideas down different paths. It was more like the working in from the perimeters to a crisp perfect focus, imho. I like Zooropa and Pop, and a good amount of the stuff on Passengers which for godssakes is pretend moviescores so it meanders away. But I think there are two issues here, stylistic content and production approach. And Bono was arguing for a change to their production approach, to reign it in and aim it toward creating that tight hot single, whatever the style or influence or theme.

I think that the influences, "references" and themes will continue to vary from time to time. But they've decided to move away from flowing outward in various directions and instead to tighten it up. If you *only* liked Zooropa and Pop and Passengers, and didn't also like AB or JT, then perhaps you should worry that you'll never get hit upside the head with another bit of U2 work unless they back off this idea, but I'm thinking that otherwise not to worry.

I think probably the only thing it means is that U2 are no longer "fucking up the mainstream."
They are the mainstream, and they want to be.
Why they want to be the best in an arena of garbage might be the better question. It's like Rebecca Romijn going down to teh fat farm and claiming "I am the most beautiful woman here!!!!"
While probably very true, it's hardly interesting.

In 1991, U2 were competing in the mainstream, with an album of songs, that while like all U2 music was pop-sensitive, was a rock and roll album that comparitively stacked up, creatively to the best and most innovative albums of the current time, be they in the mainstream or on the edges.

That to me, is the whole idea of fucking up the mainstream from the inside. You do it with the music. You get a record on the charts full of interestign ideas and sounds, exposing these ideas to the masses. You do it by being interesting. U2 seemed to be playing to different audiences in the past. They had their solid hardcore fanbase, who were addicted to the noise and the message, and with their pop sensibilties they were converting those stuck in the boredom of the mainstream.

So if they try and covet the masses with music that isn't so easily digestable, I think that is pretty interesting and creative. If they take an album suited for the masses to the masses, then that's all it is. Playing to their base. Their new base, the pop masses.

So, I don't agree with the above. I like your claims about how U2 had wanted to fuck up the mainstream, from inside the mainstream, and that they did this with AB.
I also agree that the Bomb is not innovative in the way AB was, though I totally disagree with people who say it sounds like the rest of the pop stuff out there. I think there are interesting ideas in the current stuff, but there is indeed a lot of return-to-basics feel to the work. An ode to innocence past, as Bono says, with the thought that it can be recaptured. There is an 'ode' like feel to it in a lot of places, and hence comes some of the ohgod this is derivative or best-of vibe some people are getting. I don't, I feel a lot of ah, yes that feels good and is cool to hear how you've played with these ideas, familiar and new combos of them...like in Vertigo and ABOY and LAPOE and Miracle Drug. And ah, that's 'classically beautiful' for Sometimes and as Kot eventually said of OOTS or the other 'less immediate' bits on the Bomb.
I honestly don't think they will be wanting to maintain this vibe forever, and I don't see it as the same thing they were doing with ATYCLB either, though there too they avoided 'meandering' and tried to capture these essential little nuggets of feeling and sound in a number of their songs. So happily, I like the new stuff...
But I honestly believe that even those who don't might not need to leave the band behind...

cheers!

 

[MrBrau1]

He actually says he *likes* their bigass attitudes, admires their ambitions. I thought it was really hysterical actually, his stuff about progressive rock cutting off ears from round scrubbed faces to impress the indie press, while hiphop says what the fuck is that lol. Go out and demand to be heard dammit, fuck ghettos.
cheers!

I think this is where he hit the nail on the head. Twas perfect. It's also a direct slap in the face of a huge music community who claim to be holders of "truth" in music. Which is why it's stirred up such a hornet's nest.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I think this is where he hit the nail on the head. Twas perfect. It's also a direct slap in the face of a huge music community who claim to be holders of "truth" in music. Which is why it's stirred up such a hornet's nest.

I think Bono is on the money with that as well. But it's not like U2 being full of bravado and big ideas is something new.
In the 90's rock music took that grungy navel gazing turn. Bands acted like being popular and being on stage was 'like totally the worst thing ever'. Dark and dingy, standing there on stage shoulders slumped, not moving, looking like it was the last place on earth they wanted to be.

Look at the rock that is popular now. Franz Ferdinand in snappy suits, proud to put on theatrical shows full of bravado. The Killers wearing their glitzy Vegas background as a badge of honour. Not rock, but look at the popularity of the ultra camp, theatrical Scissor Sisters. "Fuck that - I want to be big and bright" is everywhere. Looking dark and grumpy, staring at your shoes and mumbling about how much you hate it all is dead and buried.

And you know what? While all of that doom and gloom was popular and cool, U2 were touring around the world with the brightest, biggest theatrical stadium show the world had ever seen. Bono has been onto it for a long, long time. The fact that no-one could see that is why Popmart fell on it's arse in the US. According to the high and mighty, they should have been playing in dingy clubs and acting like they didn't care for it at all.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

And... just to bring that back to my argument ...

The dark and gloomy navel gazing of rock in the 90's IS what turned people to the bright and loud and proud hip-hop and pop scene. Bono again is on the money there.

The times however are a-changing. There has been a backlash within rock against the doom and gloom. There are bands who chart and sell like motherfuckers now, with a brighter louder rock that is full of bravado and big ideas, and the public ARE taking to it. The Killers are still at #11 on the current Billboard charts after 48 weeks in the chart.

U2 DID NOT NEED to sell their souls and create empty pop music. These bands are playing on U2's traditional turf and winning. They're also kicking U2's arse in the process (Hot Fuss at #11 after 48 weeks, HTDAAB well outside the top 50 after 26 weeks - and it dropped out a while ago). U2 could currently be the big daddy of them all. U2 have said, "If you can't beat them, join them" and have released a pop record with a rock influence. Bands like The Killers are saying "We can fucking beat them!" and have released a bright loud rock record with a pop influence. It's EXACTLY what U2 should have done.

Can you not see The Killers as the opening act on the Popmart stage? Perfect fit right?

 

[MrBrau1]

And... just to bring that back to my argument ...

The dark and gloomy navel gazing of rock in the 90's IS what turned people to the bright and loud and proud hip-hop and pop scene. Bono again is on the money there.

The times however are a-changing. There has been a backlash within rock against the doom and gloom. There are bands who chart and sell like motherfuckers now, with a brighter louder rock that is full of bravado and big ideas, and the public ARE taking to it. The Killers are still at #11 on the current Billboard charts after 48 weeks in the chart.

U2 DID NOT NEED to sell their souls and create empty pop music. These bands are playing on U2's traditional turf and winning. They're also kicking U2's arse in the process (Hot Fuss at #11 after 48 weeks, HTDAAB well outside the top 50 after 26 weeks - and it dropped out a while ago). U2 could currently be the big daddy of them all. U2 have said, "If you can't beat them, join them" and have released a pop record with a rock influence. Bands like The Killers are saying "We can fucking beat them!" and have released a bright loud rock record with a pop influence. It's EXACTLY what U2 should have done.

Can you not see The Killers as the opening act on the Popmart stage? Perfect fit right?

Only if you consider songs like Kite, Crumbs From Your Table, Stuck In A Moment, In A Little While, Yahweh, The Ground Beneath Her Feet, Miracle Drug, and Original Of The Species empty pop music.

And I can see The Killers on the Popmart stage. They would've been perfect.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Only if you consider songs like Kite, Crumbs From Your Table, Stuck In A Moment, In A Little While, Yahweh, The Ground Beneath Her Feet, Miracle Drug, and Original Of The Species empty pop music.

And I can see The Killers on the Popmart stage. They would've been perfect.

Well, I don't really want to drag this thread into a track by track review/debate on ATYCLB & HTDAAB. What you and I see in each song is individual and can't be argued. It's not about whether I give Track A 1/10 while you give it 9/10 anyway - it's where these songs are coming from and why.

Although, on The Ground Beneath Her Feet, despite it being tacked on the end of ATYCLB in many countries (and I think it stands out like a sore thumb on there), I consider it really a part of Million Dollar Hotel, not ATYCLB. It and Stateless are outstanding. I would be really interested to see what U2 would pull out if they were given a project to work on now, outside of the standard U2 album cycle. Like another film soundtrack or something. Take away whatever pressure it is they are feeling with their standard releases and see what's up their sleeve.

So... if you could take The Killers in a time machine back to 1997 and park them on the Popmart stage, could you take the Popmart stage in a time machine from 1997 and park it around The Killers in 2005? (Yes, this is a loaded question).

 

[echo0001]

I don't care about idealistic cries "of sell-out" it's not even important, U2 hardly need another dime the rest of their lives. But in their effort to be relevant did they compromise their music?
Some people apparently feel strongly that it does.

I think that it compromised the music, at least to a certain extent. I also think, that whether they believe it or not, they have compromised themselves. Their was a time they said (to paraphrase) "we go where the music leads us". I don't think they did it this time; I don't think they trusted the music. I think they've tried to force the music to be what they currently think of as relevant, and I think that was a mistake.

I think probably the only thing it means is that U2 are no longer "fucking up the mainstream."
They are the mainstream, and they want to be.
Why they want to be the best in an arena of garbage might be the better question. It's like Rebecca Romijn going down to teh fat farm and claiming "I am the most beautiful woman here!!!!"
While probably very true, it's hardly interesting.

Maybe someone should remind Bono that he said this....

I am interested in others perspectives. I'm not ready to throw the band under the bus, so to speak. I still love them, just like to talk about music.

I'm not ready to throw the baby out with the bath water; I'm only hoping that they will (sometime or other) realize that wooing the MOR masses may be fine for Britney and Justin, and that it is more important for us to have musicians who can trust the music, and who have the nerve to innovate, experiment, and strive, than to have another Phil Collins (in whatever guise) on our hands.

Okay, that Phil Collins thing is a very low blow, and I admit it. They haven't sunk quite that low.

But what I mean, is that we don't need another act out there mechanically churning out the same ol' same ol', no matter how good the same ol' may be. Shakespeare is wonderful, but how many copies of the sonnets do you really need?

 

[MrBrau1]

- it's where these songs are coming from and why.

This is where I'd disagree with you. It's not the motivation behind the song that decides whether it's great or not. It's the song. Otherwise you're talking about attitude. And all we really have to judge is the music. Maybe U2 did the experimental thing fo 10 years because it was easy. Maybe not. Maybe U2 are in their current "song phase" because it's easy. Maybe not. Larry's recent interview with a Chicago paper took this to task:

link is here.

http://www.suntimes.com/output/derogatis/sho-sunday-u201.html

I believe Larry. And I hear it in the songs.

 

[U2DMfan]

I think one can see the argument............

I agree in principal with you, Brau and Bono. But it's not absolute.

oh believe me, if you want to take some shots at "indie" bonehead elists fans or even bands, go right ahead, I will join you and Brau and enjoy it.

That said, it's not a condemnation of all 'indie', progressive, alternative music or bands, or even fans. It's only the snobbish ones who shudder at the idea of the mainstream having artistic music that is "credible" enough to respect.

It's also not a "pat on the back" to hip-hop, which depsite a few very good innovative and clever artists is more full of shit than any genre in the arena of popular music.

I tend to think of both of those groups as sides to the "image" music scene. The elitist "indie" is all about image, image, image, it's the very fundamental aspect of their fanaticsm. They put ideals and images over musical quality. The typical hip-hop act
does the same thing, playing to fads and images.

Neither is without good, and has a load of bad, and if I am Bono, I'm not sure how comfortable I am villifying one and not the other or vice versa (praise). They are essentially image whores. Generalizations, of course, there is good and bad in everything.

To me, it probably suits Bono's interest to compliment hip-hop
in this context, because hip-hop artists, and the community of fans don't really have any ideals to live up to. Which is both a good and bad thing. No pretentious cries of "sell-out", but no cries of accountability to the music. A hip-hop album to me, seems to be exactly what it is. If Ludacris or Usher make an album with nothing but songs geared at selling 10 million copies, there isn't a single person who would cry foul. Maybe that is a good thing, maybe that's exactly what Bono is saying. What some other people might say is that when you start making these type of records you have compromised your credibilty to the music

You can't convince me that they still don't want it. It goes hand in hand with the relevance they covet.

Credibilty and sales, meaning critical praise and chart success.
If Bono didn't truly give a shit about critical praise, why is he calling up Kot? Because I think it's in the nature of being a musician, a hugely popular one at that, to get your message understood. "Okay, say my album sucks, but don't get my reasons for making it wrong." That's what Bono did. He did it to defend his viabilty as an artist, for some form of credibilty.
I can't figure any other reason, really.

Relevancy to the message, the ideas behind what the band is saying. "Okay, your melodies are shit but the idea in your music is viable, it's relevant to the music world". It seems he attacked Kot for his definitions of what pop music should be. He didn't take issue with how great Vertigo is or isn't. Unless I need to just go back and re-read it.

Either way, U2 have an uphill battle it seems, to fight for relevance the way they have chosen to go about it.

and the last part of the post, subjectivity in music, we could go on all day about what is good and bad about the new music.
I don't deny that I dig some of it, I just think it could be better.

 

[MrBrau1]

I agree in principal with you, Brau and Bono. But it's not absolute.

oh believe me, if you want to take some shots at "indie" bonehead elists fans or even bands, go right ahead, I will join you and Brau and enjoy it.

That said, it's not a condemnation of all 'indie', progressive, alternative music or bands, or even fans. It's only the snobbish ones who shudder at the idea of the mainstream having artistic music that is "credible" enough to respect.

It's also not a "pat on the back" to hip-hop, which depsite a few very good innovative and clever artists is more full of shit than any genre in the arena of popular music.

I tend to think of both of those groups as sides to the "image" music scene. The elitist "indie" is all about image, image, image, it's the very fundamental aspect of their fanaticsm. They put ideals and images over musical quality. The typical hip-hop act
does the same thing, playing to fads and images.

Neither is without good, and has a load of bad, and if I am Bono, I'm not sure how comfortable I am villifying one and not the other or vice versa (praise). They are essentially image whores. Generalizations, of course, there is good and bad in everything.

To me, it probably suits Bono's interest to compliment hip-hop
in this context, because hip-hop artists, and the community of fans don't really have any ideals to live up to. Which is both a good and bad thing. No pretentious cries of "sell-out", but no cries of accountability to the music. A hip-hop album to me, seems to be exactly what it is. If Ludacris or Usher make an album with nothing but songs geared at selling 10 million copies, there isn't a single person who would cry foul. Maybe that is a good thing, maybe that's exactly what Bono is saying. What some other people might say is that when you start making these type of records you have compromised your credibilty to the music

You can't convince me that they still don't want it. It goes hand in hand with the relevance they covet.

Credibilty and sales, meaning critical praise and chart success.
If Bono didn't truly give a shit about critical praise, why is he calling up Kot? Because I think it's in the nature of being a musician, a hugely popular one at that, to get your message understood. "Okay, say my album sucks, but don't get my reasons for making it wrong." That's what Bono did. He did it to defend his viabilty as an artist, for some form of credibilty.
I can't figure any other reason, really.

Relevancy to the message, the ideas behind what the band is saying. "Okay, your melodies are shit but the idea in your music is viable, it's relevant to the music world". It seems he attacked Kot for his definitions of what pop music should be. He didn't take issue with how great Vertigo is or isn't. Unless I need to just go back and re-read it.

Either way, U2 have an uphill battle it seems, to fight for relevance the way they have chosen to go about it.

and the last part of the post, subjectivity in music, we could go on all day about what is good and bad about the new music.
I don't deny that I dig some of it, I just think it could be better.

Fair enough.

 

[ultraviolet7]

Originally posted by U2DMfan
Questions, to continue the discussion, hopefully civil:

Nobody would deny that U2 changed their style, once again in 2000 and continuing to the current time.

Did they change the music because of sheer artistic motivation or need?: meaning "this is exactly the music we want to do"

Or did they change to be more relevant to the charts, music video, radio etc.?

The answer to that lies in how much one is inclined to believe in the band's good faith.

Originally posted by U2DMfan
Nobody asks the question why ultimately they changed producers after basically finishing the album in Dec 2003. I beleive it's because it wasn't mainstream enough. I use that term "mainstream" for lack of a better one. Larry said so, they played it and it didn't have the "hit", they re-recorded Vertigo, it went from raw rock, to gimmicky single.

We don't know the answer to this one for certain. Maybe that was the reason, maybe it wasn't. IMV Vertigo (minus the 1,2,3,14) kicks ass. Native Son can't be compared in my view - it's only a sketch. Does the problem go down to the fact that they are not playing raw rock?

Originally posted by U2DMfan
So if this is true, and the music was altered for "relevance", which basically translate to sales among other things, then was the music compromised?

Well. this is a different argument altogether. It is essential to define precisely what is meant by "compromising the music" or "compromising what the band was/stood for". Personally I think that compromise in this context is rather a nebulous concept, in which personal taste lies too close for comfort. Does the fact that we are not as keen on present U2 music as we were in the past necessarily define an artistic compromise? I think not. Only the band know if they sacrificed art in the name of the priority of being massive.

Originally posted by U2DMfan
If there weren't a decided attempt at heavy promotion and even I-pod ads and all that stuff, would it be easier to swallow that the band are chasing down an artistic path? I don't think so.
I don't care about promotion, do it all you want, U2. The point is, if they weren't so weighted heavily in that direction, wouldit be easier to convince me that they are in their Beatles pop phase?

Probably. And they know it. That's why the band/Bono seem to have to need to explain things so much. When there's so much justifying and explaining artistic decisions I get the impression that there something that's not entirely right.

Originally posted by U2DMfan
I think everything the band has said leads in this direction. Recent quotes from teh band, all add up. They are consistent with one another, be it derision of POP for certain reasons or justification of promotion or safer music, they are essentially the same reasons.

Yes I tend to believe that the Pop dissing ("anyway it wasn't what we wanted") is an excuse to justify the change.

Originally posted by U2DMfan
U2 are screaming "we want to be relevant"
by itself, there is nothing wrong with that premise.
If you are U2, and your idea or relvance is the charts, music televison, radio play, then your idea of relevance is to sell, sell, sell it.

Well it is rather difficult not to associate mass popularity with charts, MTV and airplay. They wanted mass popularity, it's clear. However I see nothing wrong with a band wanting to hit the charts, be airplayed or wanting to have their videos on MTV. However I don't think any of us has the necessary knowledge of cause to state that the band's idea of relevance is exclusively aimed at hitting the charts, appearing on MTV and getting round the clock airplaying. Again this judgement rests on how much one is prepared to believe in the band's good faith.

Originally posted by U2DMfan
So if you accept that, which I beleive to be true, the question left to answer for yourself, is "did U2 compromise the music to sell" and if so, is it even important to you? I mean, if you like the music as many do, I don't suppose it would be that important. If you aren't as enthusiastic about post -2000 U2, maybe it bothers you.

I beg to differ. I'm not exactly enthusiastic about post Pop U2. I'm interested in what the band has to say about their change of direction as long as it doesn't involve permanent justifications for the move (still after 5 years!) which make me think they've got an issue with this change. However to assert whether the band compromised their music to sell or not (if this were remotely possible) is not going to make any difference as to whether I like the material or not. What I mean to say is that if hypothetically it could be established that they did not compromise their music with the objective of selling massively, I'm not going to like their post Pop material more than I do. The contrary also applies.

Originally posted by U2DMfan
I don't care about idealistic cries "of sell-out" it's not even important, U2 hardly need another dime the rest of their lives. But in their effort to be relevant did they compromise their music?
Some people apparently feel strongly that it does.
What does it mean?

I think probably the only thing it means is that U2 are no longer "fucking up the mainstream."
They are the mainstream, and they want to be.
Why they want to be the best in an arena of garbage might be the better question. It's like Rebecca Romijn going down to teh fat farm and claiming "I am the most beautiful woman here!!!!"
While probably very true, it's hardly interesting.

Wanting to be massively popular does not necessarily imply that their efforts are aimed at "wanting to be the best in an arena of garbage". They wanted to be popular back in 1987 and they released JT. I don't think JT was aimed at being best in an arena of garbage - OK the 80s scene wasn't the same as the present day scene, but there undoubtedly was a quota of garbage in it too.

Originally posted by U2DMfan
In 1991, U2 were competing in the mainstream, with an album of songs, that while like all U2 music was pop-sensitive, was a rock and roll album that comparitively stacked up, creatively to the best and most innovative albums of the current time, be they in the mainstream or on the edges.

That to me, is the whole idea of fucking up the mainstream from the inside. You do it with the music. You get a record on the charts full of interestign ideas and sounds, exposing these ideas to the masses. You do it by being interesting. U2 seemed to be playing to different audiences in the past. They had their solid hardcore fanbase, who were addicted to the noise and the message, and with their pop sensibilties they were converting those stuck in the boredom of the mainstream.

I don't think U2 fucked the mainstream from inside in 91 or was even interested in trying to until 97. I think that they rather they took the piss out on mainstream, they were more interested in experimenting and in redefining the rock/pop concept for the 90s. In fact U2 was hardly massive in the 90s and that didn't seem to bother the band much apparently until Pop. The fact that Zoo TV was massively attended does not mean that they were widely popular. In fact they weren't, they were niche and Pop defined this niche more clearly still. How many people outside the U2 fan base do you know who can identify a 90s song besides One and perhaps The Fly or maybe Discotheque (because of the video)? THAT is popularity or rather the lack of. Now if we buy into what Bono says about wanting Pop to communicate more massively there we see that at that point (1997 and not before) U2 manifested the desire to reach out to the masses with an innovative product. In this context Pop had a shot in fucking up the mainstream from inside. Sadly it failed and the band didn't try again. They decided the priority was becoming widely popular and they released something they considered would succeed in making them so. ATYCLB and HTDAAB didn't succeed in becoming their new JT but then, as I said, the 80s scene was completely different. There was more room to manoeuver.

Originally posted by U2DMfan
So if they try and covet the masses with music that isn't so easily digestable, I think that is pretty interesting and creative. If they take an album suited for the masses to the masses, then that's all it is. Playing to their base. Their new base, the pop masses.

I agree, however as I said, the only album in the last few years apparently designed to covet the masses with innovative music failed in its design. There weren't others to compare with since the band's priorities were different. Obviously it could be argued that aiming at massive popularity may produce less interesting results as far as the artistic offer is concerned than striving to produce innovative music. But then this is also relative. You could end up with interesting music originally aimed at the masses and innovative stuff that could make you drop off to sleep at track #2. It's all down to what you look for in music.

 

[ultraviolet7]

I would be really interested to see what U2 would pull out if they were given a project to work on now, outside of the standard U2 album cycle. Like another film soundtrack or something. Take away whatever pressure it is they are feeling with their standard releases and see what's up their sleeve.

Do you think they are releasing what they are because they are under some sort of pressure?

The Hands That Built America was made for a film. OK it isn't a soundtrack. Maybe on a more integral piece of work they could show more. The "sample" isn't especially interesting.

 

[ultraviolet7]

This is where I'd disagree with you. It's not the motivation behind the song that decides whether it's great or not. It's the song. Otherwise you're talking about attitude. And all we really have to judge is the music.

Absolutely agree.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Do you think they are releasing what they are because they are under some sort of pressure?

Yes. A full U2 album has a lot of pressure on it. From both outside (they're U2, a very high quality is expected) and from inside (scaling the charts, biggest band in the world etc etc). Do I think HTDAAB is a result of that pressure? It certainly is a product of their internal pressure.

Let's imagine this tour winds down and Wim Wenders is making a new, arty film that will be fairly limited in it's release and exposure (compared to a Hollywood film) and he wants U2 to do the soundtrack. The same pressure wouldn't be there. The high quality is still expected, but the only expectations on sales etc would go hand in hand with the expectations for the film, ie niche. I'm not talking about writing the soundtrack for the new Superman film here. I think U2 would be shed of this desire to tackle the Britney's etc and would be genuinely free to put whatever is on their minds down on record - charts and sales be damned. That would be interesting to me.

The Million Dollar Hotel soundtrack was written and recorded at around the same time as ATYCLB. Personally, I think there's more in Stateless & Ground Beneath Her Feet then all of ATYCLB put together. My ATYCLB finishes with Ground Beneath Her Feet, and it feels like I've been swimming in the shallows for an hour, then suddenly we go diving off the shelf into the depths on that one track, but it's really a Million Dollar Hotel track and I think, in a similar way, if U2 were given an outlet outside of their standard album cycle that it would produce something quite different to what we are hearing on HTDAAB.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

So... if you could take The Killers in a time machine back to 1997 and park them on the Popmart stage, could you take the Popmart stage in a time machine from 1997 and park it around The Killers in 2005? (Yes, this is a loaded question).

Ohhhh MrBrau? Hello?

 

[ultraviolet7]

Yes. A full U2 album has a lot of pressure on it. From both outside (they're U2, a very high quality is expected) and from inside (scaling the charts, biggest band in the world etc etc). Do I think HTDAAB is a result of that pressure? It certainly is a product of their internal pressure.

Let's imagine this tour winds down and Wim Wenders is making a new, arty film that will be fairly limited in it's release and exposure (compared to a Hollywood film) and he wants U2 to do the soundtrack. The same pressure wouldn't be there. The high quality is still expected, but the only expectations on sales etc would go hand in hand with the expectations for the film, ie niche. I'm not talking about writing the soundtrack for the new Superman film here. I think U2 would be shed of this desire to tackle the Britney's etc and would be genuinely free to put whatever is on their minds down on record - charts and sales be damned. That would be interesting to me.

The Million Dollar Hotel soundtrack was written and recorded at around the same time as ATYCLB. Personally, I think there's more in Stateless & Ground Beneath Her Feet then all of ATYCLB put together. My ATYCLB finishes with Ground Beneath Her Feet, and it feels like I've been swimming in the shallows for an hour, then suddenly we go diving off the shelf into the depths on that one track, but it's really a Million Dollar Hotel track and I think, in a similar way, if U2 were given an outlet outside of their standard album cycle that it would produce something quite different to what we are hearing on HTDAAB.

I am aware that an U2 release has a lot of pressure on it. But that is true of any U2 release in the last 15 years. This is not what we are talking about. But OK you answer in the end. Now if you don't mind, what makes you think there is a particular "internal pressure" at this moment, which conversely wasn't, from what you seem to imply, present in the past?

Re the other part. I agree about GBHF and Stateless, you may have a point here. However it must be noted that a) Million Dollar Hotel was a project in which Bono was more involved in that just musically. He was active in developing an arty project himself, so it's rather natural that the music is not the sort of stuff U2 are releasing now. I don't know if U2 would now indulge in less obvious music in other conditions i.e. if they were merely asked for a soundtrack. Also in the light of the sort of music they are doing now, maybe U2 aren't at this moment interested in participating in niche projects at all. b) MDH is 2000 indeed but perhaps Bono and Wenders had envisioned this project some time before. Maybe the actual developement was say 2 years old? That would put things in 1998. There is some difference.

On another account, in view of the sort of music U2 are releasing at this moment, it would be possible that an arty director wouldn't be considering U2 as an option for his/her soundtrack. The fact that U2 is capable of producing another type of music does not mean that they are going to produce it now. It is more likely that the soundtrack for an arty film would today land in the in the hands of bands like Radiohead.

Maybe it's also an useful parallel to note in the 90s U2s contribution to a Hollywood film was HMTMKMKM and in 01 it was THTBA.

 

[MrBrau1]

Ohhhh MrBrau? Hello?

Oh yes, the Killers w/ a Popmart stage in 2005. I could see it.
Though I think they need 2 or 3 more albums before they could command a stadium. While I like their debut, it lacks a great deal of range.