What could U2 do to top the Achtung Baby reinvention?

[t8thgr8]

Now it seems that theres something or someone waving a finger at them. Not letting them get too out of control again. Result: pop tunes. The spirit is still there, its just buried really deep. Whisper-quiet so that the finger doesnt wave. The lyrics are, unfortunately, the rights of the finger.

And im not too sure the finger is Bono's.

 

[LemonAid]

Now theres this new U2. The vulnerable one. The one that looks up for a reaction instead of the one that just keeps on unfazed.

[/B]

perfectly put.

 

[roy]

Im a relatively new fan. I was picked up during the Beautiful day/Walk on period. I went out and got their g-hits and it quickly snowballed from there.

Listening to their back catalogue, it was obvious there were two u2s. Reading fan books and mags, it was obvious they changed in the middle of their run. I didnt need message boards to tell me that. Beautiful Day sparked the curiosity, UF JT AB and PoP fed it.

Now theres this new U2. The vulnerable one. The one that looks up for a reaction instead of the one that just keeps on unfazed.

Just out of interest, what do you think is the difference between U2 circa ATYCLB and HTDAAB? You seem to suggest that 'new U2' began with HTDAAB, but perhaps I'm mis-interpreting your comments.

 

[t8thgr8]

The answer:


Fuck the finger. Everything the finger knew is wrong now. Edge sings and plays lead. Edge's face is up gainst the lens.

It seems some of you are for the story of Bono and not necessarily U2.

The thing is, im not Larry, Edge Adam or Bono. I dont know what they could do regarding the arrangment, but Bono has been in music for godamn 30 years. Im sure theres something he could come up with to contribute. I would suggest a harmonica but im not Bono and i would like to think hed surprise us.

We all say their two best albums are Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby. There are some of you who think otherwise but you dont matter.

Think about this: Joshua tree is the masterpiece from the eighties. From an era when they were searhing for themselves, their sound and their spot. Not a very skilled band but very good, regardless.

Then came the nineties. The album, Achtung baby. The era, experimentation, growth. The sound, abstract. The audience, excited and a little scared. Discoteque comes and the audience realizes their with or without you band with the ripped jeans and leather vests is gone and never coming back, replaced by this circus show. Some get it. Most dont give it a chance.

Enter the finger.

What we have here now is a band that technically should be at their peak. Theyve perfected their craft. They know how to explore the studio. They know our tollerance. Hell, after the Pop debacle, the tollerance should be up. The equation should result in the best U2 record ever, right? Interscope steps in and says to hell with limits, here's atyclb and htdaab. The audience will easily 'get it' and we're here to stay for a few more years. Everybody wins. U2's reply: 'Okay'.

The problem is, U2 doesnt win. The execs win with sales, the audience wins with their comforting nostalgia act, but u2 is now in 'hit-maker' mode. I cant complain, I wouldnt be here had that not happened.

 

[t8thgr8]

Just out of interest, what do you think is the difference between U2 circa ATYCLB and HTDAAB? You seem to suggest that 'new U2' began with HTDAAB, but perhaps I'm mis-interpreting your comments.

new u2 began in 2000. right after the million dollar soundtrack.

 

[t8thgr8]

And dont think im a Bono-hater. I have had Bono's best interests in mind throughout this whole idea.


































It all sets up the majestic 'Return of Bono'.

 

[roy]

Interscope steps in and says to hell with limits, here's atyclb and htdaab. The audience will easily 'get it' and we're here to stay for a few more years. Everybody wins. U2's reply: 'Okay'.

I'm sorry mate but that's the most simplistic crap I've read on here for a long time.

 

[BVS]

They need more cowbell.

 

[t8thgr8]

I'm sorry mate but that's the most simplistic crap I've read on here for a long time.

Elaborate. Keep in mind their position at the time.

 

[roy]

Elaborate. Keep in mind their position at the time.

To suggest that Interscope had a say in their future musical direction is simply ridiculous. U2, throughout their career, have always done exactly what they wanted. This period (even though you may not like it) is no different.

 

[t8thgr8]

That's just it. There is no direction.

You've got to be impaired if you think that there wasnt something that happened in 2000.

Is it that crazy to think that an executive or whatever is was came up to them when they sat down to brainstorm the new album (2000) and said:

'hey guys, somethings got to be done. We took quite a hit with this last album and we need you guys to cut back. Maybe bring back the sound that got you here, mm-kay? Thanksalot.'

Is it that far-fetched?

 

[Zoots]

I reserve the right to call Bono a charicature of himself, because quite honestly it's beyond fucking obvious. His persona has become a crap cliche. I say it because it BOTHERS me, not because I sort of take secret pleasure from digging on Bono.

KUEF, try and learn to read criticsm from fans who love the band as much and probably more than you and find something new to add besides sticking up for a band who'd tell you they don't need you to do so in the first place.

Well said.

 

[BluRmGrl]

Not that I don't agree with some of the arguments here, but to get all philosophical for a second: I wonder if some of our clamoring for a change within the band isn't more about our fear of their (and our own) mortality?....

Anyway, just to stir the pot a bit I'll make this comparison: As much as you may hate the "rock star image" with its ever-present shades & black leather, sometimes that's so embedded in the public pysche that when we think we want something different, we're not happy when we get it. Remember, KISS with kabuki makeup = rock-n-roll gods... KISS without makeup = rock-n-roll duds.

Just some random thoughts....

 

[U2DMfan]

That's just it. There is no direction.

You've got to be impaired if you think that there wasnt something that happened in 2000.

Is it that crazy to think that an executive or whatever is was came up to them when they sat down to brainstorm the new album (2000) and said:

'hey guys, somethings got to be done. We took quite a hit with this last album and we need you guys to cut back. Maybe bring back the sound that got you here, mm-kay? Thanksalot.'

Is it that far-fetched?

It's not far fetched, but you'd have to assume that a band who bent over to a request like that had no backbone and no intergrity. U2 may be pissing their own fans off now and then but they haven't gone off that deep end, yet. I'd be more than shocked if this were the case.

You've got to consider the democracy of U2, it doesn't need help from Interscope executives to complicate the process. You've got to basically please all 5 members. It's quite possible the only common ground was the most basic idea they could come up with. Larry to Bono "okay, you can keep that song but it's got to be catchier" or whatever. Maybe in years past Larry didn't question the band's song selections, I think he said "I sat around for a decade and let you guys fuck around....not anymore". So we had the overhaul.

I'm 95% confident that the things you describe would have never taken place. U2 would rather put an album out of Edge and Adam farting into a didgeradoo than bow down to record company execs.

 

[U2DMfan]

Not that I don't agree with some of the arguments here, but to get all philosophical for a second: I wonder if some of our clamoring for a change within the band isn't more about our fear of their (and our own) mortality?....

Anyway, just to stir the pot a bit I'll make this comparison: As much as you may hate the "rock star image" with its ever-present shades & black leather, sometimes that's so embedded in the public pysche that when we think we want something different, we're not happy when we get it. Remember, KISS with kabuki makeup = rock-n-roll gods... KISS without makeup = rock-n-roll duds.

Just some random thoughts....

I don't think the band is concerned with their own mortality as much as their own longevity (career) and they'd rather not risk a commercical failure at this point.

The point well made earlier was that the parody was the joke in the 90's it was the put-on. "okay BONO is dressed up like a sleazy token Axl-wannabe, but it's a statement!!!"
Now he IS the Axl-wannabe. What the fuck else is he?

Kiss were part of the parody of ZooTv. It was "hey, we are still U2, same message, same conviction but since people are sick of our self-righteous image, here ya go, now we are KISS!!!!" or what the fuck ever, you get the idea.

It was a changing of the image for effect. Not a fashion statement.

I don't know what the fuck it is now. Maybe it's nothing, maybe it really is the cliche, long greasy hair, black leather sunglasses.
I give Bono more credit than that. He must have lost a bet.

 

[Zoots]

'hey guys, somethings got to be done. We took quite a hit with this last album and we need you guys to cut back. Maybe bring back the sound that got you here, mm-kay? Thanksalot.'

Is it that far-fetched?

No, it's not that far fetched! I wouldn't put it past them. Especially after the disaster that was the 90s Best Of with the y watered down crap remixes.

U2 (in the 00s) = media whores.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

It is far fetched. Interscope would be incredibly pleased with U2 of the 00's. Ridiculously. But they don't have that kind of control, not over U2.

 

[pepokiss]

Nº1 = Bono

about image, he should go for this

http://us.f2.yahoofs.com/users/41ab3769z9833e120/8378/__sr_/3bc6.jpg?phiCZaDBKgW_wpCY


maybe the hair won't go as wild as in this photo, but the beard is what he should go for


the "he became a parody of himself"...

I don't think so... just because he's wearing sunglasses or crap, talking to Bush Jr...

Sure, he was portraying a rock star in ZooTV, but now he IS a rock star, something that in the JT era wasn't... and we could figure out how tired we would be of JT Bono if he had stuck around for 15 years...

The rock star is in him, because the world made him a rock star... and that status.. I think, I know he doesn't like that unless he's on stage... he might hate being Bono sometimes... I'm sure he wants to be Paul Hewson once again... and now we get to my point.

Bono's the rock star... and he's killing Paul Hewson.

Maybe that's something he realised in the Popmart years... and that must suck, a lot.
But then Bono may have seen the light, a glimpse of hope for Paul Hewson...

Now Bono is the Rock Star... and Paul Hewson is a man on a mission... a mission to end poverty on Africa and the world.

I really can't begin to imagine the pressure that Bono must feel everyday when he wakes up... he has the world on his hand, yet it seems he has nothing.

We all see Bono talking to Bush, but I think he goes to those places, the White House, the UN, etc, as Paul Hewson, as a man with a mission in life, which is to save lives in order to save his own.
To really fullfill and to not become a mockery of himself, Bono's doing all this Africa and AIDS work. Not because that'll keep him alive, the rockstar in him does that already... but the soul wanted more, because being JUST a rock star is exactly what Bono didn't wanted to be, and that was what he was becoming. That's what people that don't know Bono see.

His dues as a rock star are getting payed by saving lives. In order to save Paul Hewson, Bono must let him live, and in return, Paul Hewson will save Bono. "Help me help you" (look, a TC quote *shakesangryscientolgistfist* )


I think you get my point... Bono's not doing all of this just to feel fine about himself... is because he feels that is his job to do it, because no one else wants, and because no one else has the star power that Bono has... and to know that... the feeling of having that chance and not taking it like a lot of rock stars have is what makes Paul Hewson die AND live...


If Bono wouldn't do anything, just be a rock star, Paul Hewson would just die... and with that, millions of people too... and Bono too would have a slowly, painfull death.






About the band as a whole... political???... I don't think is the way to go.. not to just escape from the issues, but because it might not be their war anymore... the warhorses get tired... and a lot of bands are born every day. It's their time to fight... U2 should just be like Yoda, and the rest like young Jedis.


But I really know that to found what they're looking for IS their thing... thay should really try to find that, something that with ATYCLB didn't happen, but that with HTDAAB I saw a spark of things to come. Miracle Drug, COBL... songs that got me form the start. And especially with things like MERCY... they still look for something that they know is there, just don't know exactly WHERE... and to find that is their mission in life.

As long as they try to find the thing they're looking for, I'm with them... and all of us will too


Pepo

 

[Nube Gris]

N O T H I N G
why the F.....do we need another reinvention?
U2's making the best music of their lives, and giving some of the greatest live performances of their lives, on maybe U2's best tour

and no. Vertigo is NOT the only thing from recent times that can stand alongside U2 best music......you have SYCMOYO, Original Of The Species, City Of Blinding Lights and many more from HTDAAB and ATYCLB also....

U2 is in its creative peak at the moment, and playing live better than ever

So the only thing for U2 is to just keep being U2

And they are at the moment

 

[shaun vox]

(U2 is in its creative peak at the moment, and playing live better than ever)

what is so creative about atyclb and htdaab???
it sounds like any other band ! say COLDPLAY!!
IF YOU ARE GOING TO GO BACK TO YOUR OWN SOUND(U2) at least make it fun and interesting!!
not some adultcontempary/pop tunes !! so they can be on the radio and make alot of $$$ ! well then fuck you!!!

 

[jacobus]

jacobus wrote: spot on! boner unfortunately completely turned into a comic character of himself. furthermore the other three of the band should remove him from the brakepedal. imo he is the main-culprit for the lame sound of their last two albums.

roy wrote:I'm not sure if you're being serious. So I'll ask the question......are you being serious?

@roy: you asked me if i am serious. my answer to your question is YES i am serious. they became lame and boring over the last few years. and boner is the one on the break pedal and yes he has turned into a cartoon character...

 

[namkcuR]

N O T H I N G
why the F.....do we need another reinvention?
U2's making the best music of their lives, and giving some of the greatest live performances of their lives, on maybe U2's best tour

and no. Vertigo is NOT the only thing from recent times that can stand alongside U2 best music......you have SYCMOYO, Original Of The Species, City Of Blinding Lights and many more from HTDAAB and ATYCLB also....

U2 is in its creative peak at the moment, and playing live better than ever

So the only thing for U2 is to just keep being U2

And they are at the moment

With that statement, you lose your credibility. You could make a case for 1984-1988, you could make a case for 1990-1998(my pick), but to say that 2005 U2 is at its creative peak is ridiculous. It's like saying Michael Jordan was in his prime when he played for the Washington Wizards circa 2001-2003 - when in reality he was at minimum five years past his peak.

 

[LemonAid]

the "he became a parody of himself"...

The rock star is in him, because the world made him a rock star... and that status.. I think, I know he doesn't like that unless he's on stage... he might hate being Bono sometimes... I'm sure he wants to be Paul Hewson once again... and now we get to my point.

Bono's the rock star... and he's killing Paul Hewson.

Maybe that's something he realised in the Popmart years... and that must suck, a lot.
But then Bono may have seen the light, a glimpse of hope for Paul Hewson...

Now Bono is the Rock Star... and Paul Hewson is a man on a mission... a mission to end poverty on Africa and the world.

I really can't begin to imagine the pressure that Bono must feel everyday when he wakes up... he has the world on his hand, yet it seems he has nothing.

To really fullfill and to not become a mockery of himself, Bono's doing all this Africa and AIDS work. Not because that'll keep him alive, the rockstar in him does that already... but the soul wanted more, because being JUST a rock star is exactly what Bono didn't wanted to be, and that was what he was becoming. That's what people that don't know Bono see.

His dues as a rock star are getting payed by saving lives. In order to save Paul Hewson, Bono must let him live, and in return, Paul Hewson will save Bono. "Help me help you" (look, a TC quote *shakesangryscientolgistfist* )

If Bono wouldn't do anything, just be a rock star, Paul Hewson would just die... and with that, millions of people too... and Bono too would have a slowly, painfull death.

About the band as a whole... political???... I don't think is the way to go.. not to just escape from the issues, but because it might not be their war anymore... the warhorses get tired... and a lot of bands are born every day. It's their time to fight... U2 should just be like Yoda, and the rest like young Jedis.

But I really know that to found what they're looking for IS their thing... thay should really try to find that, something that with ATYCLB didn't happen, but that with HTDAAB I saw a spark of things to come. Miracle Drug, COBL... songs that got me form the start. And especially with things like MERCY... they still look for something that they know is there, just don't know exactly WHERE... and to find that is their mission in life.

As long as they try to find the thing they're looking for, I'm with them... and all of us will too


Pepo

really great post, and a refreshing new angle..... maybe this is it then, this is what we're gonna have from now on...

 

[t8thgr8]

Not that I don't agree with some of the arguments here, but to get all philosophical for a second: I wonder if some of our clamoring for a change within the band isn't more about our fear of their (and our own) mortality?....

Anyway, just to stir the pot a bit I'll make this comparison: As much as you may hate the "rock star image" with its ever-present shades & black leather, sometimes that's so embedded in the public pysche that when we think we want something different, we're not happy when we get it. Remember, KISS with kabuki makeup = rock-n-roll gods... KISS without makeup = rock-n-roll duds.

Just some random thoughts....

U2 with shaggy hair and leather vests = rock-n-roll gods...U2 with fly shades, sparkly jeans and muscle-man t-shirt = rock-n-roll gods.

What's your point?...........

Kiss???

 

[t8thgr8]

really great post, and a refreshing new angle..... maybe this is it then, this is what we're gonna have from now on...

It's a great read and it makes ya think but what the hell does it have to do with the topic?

 

[U2girl]

It's not far fetched, but you'd have to assume that a band who bent over to a request like that had no backbone and no intergrity. U2 may be pissing their own fans off now and then but they haven't gone off that deep end, yet. I'd be more than shocked if this were the case.

You've got to consider the democracy of U2, it doesn't need help from Interscope executives to complicate the process. You've got to basically please all 5 members. It's quite possible the only common ground was the most basic idea they could come up with. Larry to Bono "okay, you can keep that song but it's got to be catchier" or whatever. Maybe in years past Larry didn't question the band's song selections, I think he said "I sat around for a decade and let you guys fuck around....not anymore". So we had the overhaul.

I'm 95% confident that the things you describe would have never taken place. U2 would rather put an album out of Edge and Adam farting into a didgeradoo than bow down to record company execs.

Agreed, I don't think Interscope has that much power over the band, and I don't think they would listen to the executives. (there's a story how one of them, Jimmy Iovine, begged Bono to call that song anything else but Yahweh).

Speaking of the band agreeing on their albums, are there any quotes on the 80's albums - I mean apart from Edge stopping Bono from making JT even more America influenced? We have the conflict story about AB, and the agreeing on last two albums. What about Zooropa and Pop?

My choice for the main "guilty" party for the current sound - (Bomb more so than ATYCLB) is Edge. He's a huge part of their sound, and I remember reading in an interview everyone else kept telling him during ATYCLB sessions "this sounds too much like U2", or for example the now famous BD argument between Bono and Edge.

 

[U2DMfan]

Speaking of the band agreeing on their albums, are there any quotes on the 80's albums - I mean apart from Edge stopping Bono from making JT even more America influenced? We have the conflict story about AB, and the agreeing on last two albums. What about Zooropa and Pop?

My choice for the main "guilty" party for the current sound - (Bomb more so than ATYCLB) is Edge. He's a huge part of their sound, and I remember reading in an interview everyone else kept telling him during ATYCLB sessions "this sounds too much like U2", or for example the now famous BD argument between Bono and Edge.

Well I don't have a specific story, off hand about POP, I don't think one exists for Zooropa, which as advertised I believe to be totally off-the-cuff, they didn't have time to disagree. Also I think Eno was really a 5th member at that point, remember Passengers was spawned from the energy of that session.

About POP, the interesting thing about those sessions is where it turned from a dance-oriented record to start going back organic and where did that turn come from?? I think the band equally shares the blame for it's "incompletion" so I'd doubt they'd be throwing each other under the bus, so to speak.

MY guess is that there is probably a good story or 20 buried in that time period, but probably acknowledged by all parties as a "mistake". Of course, we all know that is contested by all kinds of people on this forum including myself.

That's a long way of saying, I don't have much to add right now.
I am sometimes good at digging up interviews and articles for perspective, I may try that tomorrow.

As for your last part, well I'd agree in that I think Edge is a HUGE chunk of all of their sound. But if he makes a rabbit and Larry or Bono wanted a kitty, he'd make the rabbit as close to the kitty while trying to keep his own ideas intact. Compromise is a big part of the whole process. I draw my parallels from the songs that got cut, versus the ones that didn't. Edge was as guilty of 'Xanax' as he was of anything else, but they changed to compromise, so the onus in those respects is off of him. But I do agree, he is as 'guilty' as anyone else. They are all guilty of compromise.

 

[U2girl]

"compromise, that's nothing new to you" It's bound to happen with 4 people.

Yes, Zooropa was fast, but even then they threw away the rocking songs because they didn't want to go into their direction. (I read on this forum that according to At the end of the world, they had 5 guitar songs at least as good as Wake up dead man.)

As for Pop, my understanding is they regret the unrehearsed tour start more than the album. Unfinished talk aside, who knows how close they got to what they wanted on that album (or any other album, for that matter)? Getting the sound in their heads onto the record?
I'm not sure Larry's "extra month" would help.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

On leaving the rockin' songs off Zooropa, I'd say that is as much about them simply not fitting as any decision to throw away a sound. A big guitar song on Zooropa would just throw the whole thing off base. Just imagine if Gone was in the middle of that album. Does. Not. Fit.

On Pop, I think Larry's month would have been perfect. I don't hear any mistakes in the songs or even the recording (by that I mean choices made in what sounds, instruments, effects, whatever). To me the songs, their structure, all those decisions are perfect. All the fuck ups to me sound like they are at the production/mixing/editing stage. In some songs, like Staring At The Sun, it's blindingly obvious, and you do get this mental image of them having a deadline looming literally a day away, listening through it, (they MUST hear the mistakes), but saying "Fuck it, it will have to do" and some guy running off down the hallway, CD in hand.

 

[Ellay]

why the F.....do we need another reinvention?

Because that's why U2 are still at the top of their game after 30 years?