When Paul McGuinness politely and eloquently distanced himself from U2

[Knuckle]

Does anyone ever remember watching that special on ABC at the commencement of the PopMart tour. It was called, "U2: A Year in Pop". I liked it a lot, but I'd heard it had absolutely dismal ratings for the TV network.

Anyway, I've always remembered a line from Paul McGuinness from that special. He was being interviewed about what he thought of the whole "Pop" concept, going further into techno music, and the entire "PopMart" tour concept. He looked rather uncomfortable and simply responded, "My instinct is to trust theirs". Translation: "It's not my idea, and I've tried to direct them away from it but they won't listen." (Anyway, that's what I read into it.)

When the PopMart tour was over, I can imagine McGuinness saying, "Right. We're done with that. Now dust off your guitars and just bloody play next time." (Hence, the Elevation Tour.)

 

[* MoFo *]

I've not seen that programme, but i'd say your interpretations are pretty good

 

[BVS]

I love how some can read so much out of one line. I think you're putting your interpretation into it.

And dust off their guitars? Have you listened to the album, there's some great guitar work on that album.

 

[Knuckle]

Maybe you're right. I suppose what he really meant is that he thought PopMart was an excellent idea, that there was much more to explore with techno, and that he was 100% in support of the project. Sorry, I don't see it that way. I think that his management sensibilities made him have real worries about PopMart and all it entailed. However, he recognized that the band were pursuing something creative and that they were interested in. So, he reluctantly stepped out of the way.

Anyway, it doesn't really matter. I loved PopMart and this is all just some fun speculation over something that even they don't care about anymore.

As for the guitars, you'll have to admit that Pop was U2's most techno and least "back to basics" effort. I like the album, but I could really have done without a lot of the screeching and scraping sounds that made parts of it unlistenable. With all the talk of re-recording Pop, Mofo is the one song that I'd love to hear re-worked with more Larry and Adam and less sounds like nails on a blackboard. Nonetheless, I still love the tune.

 

[BVS]

My instinct is to trust theirs

How do you know he doesn't say this with every tour. To me it just sounds like a good manager, one that trusts the artist and doesn't try and mold them.

And as for Mofo, that's Larry doing some of the best drumming to date.

 

[Zootomic]

My opinion of Paul McGuinness has always been that he is a small-time manager who happened to latch onto a big-time band and has ridden on their coattails for nearly thirty years. When McGuinness says something like "My instinct is to trust theirs" my interpretation is - "I don't have a single speck of talent or skill in my body so I'll just do what I always do, let the band make the music and hire people to plan the tour while I collect my fat checks".

 

[david]

As for the guitars, you'll have to admit that Pop was U2's most techno and least "back to basics" effort. I like the album, but I could really have done without a lot of the screeching and scraping sounds that made parts of it unlistenable. With all the talk of re-recording Pop, Mofo is the one song that I'd love to hear re-worked with more Larry and Adam and less sounds like nails on a blackboard. Nonetheless, I still love the tune.

Yeah, but compare POP to Zooropa and POP comes out ahead in terms of musical accessability. Zooropa was the album that was anti guitar and anti commercial music in general. Everyone looks at the POP album like it's so daring and adventurous, but at the time there were other bands doing the same thing like The Prodigy, Chemical Bros etc

 

[PopFly]

My opinion of Paul McGuinness has always been that he is a small-time manager who happened to latch onto a big-time band and has ridden on their coattails for nearly thirty years. When McGuinness says something like "My instinct is to trust theirs" my interpretation is - "I don't have a single speck of talent or skill in my body so I'll just do what I always do, let the band make the music and hire people to plan the tour while I collect my fat checks".

I don't agree with this at all. Look at how many musical and commercial missteps that virtually every other major band has suffered over the years, and compare to how few (if any, really) that U2 have had to deal with. McGuinness is an exceptional manager.

 

[Popmartijn]

Indeed, McGuinness is considered by many in the music business to be an excellent manager. Apparently, he's a very tough negotiator who always tries to get the best for his clients.
And I think herein lies part of the reason for his comment. It's often said about U2 that they're a band of four and a corporation of five. Thus, Bono, Edge, Adam & Larry are the creative team and with McGuinness they're also the U2 brand. Thus, McGuinness has next to no creative input in the band. I think I also read somewhere that he doesn't even want to have it. He knows his limitations and he's not the one having to perform it all. His job is to look after the (financial) interests of the band, not to steer U2 in a particular musical direction. And so he tries to get the best for his clients whichever road they choose. It's not distancing himself from a particular style, it's protecting the manager - band relation.

 

[Max_theHitman]

Give the guy some slack folks. Paul had and still has vision in the band when no one dared to touch them. He KNOWS when to back off and let the band do their "thing" and he just does what he does best... manage and control other things that the band members don´t really have all the time in the world to take care of.
AND "yes", he does get paid for the job, wouldn´t YOU want to get paid for a job well done?
If U2 thought he was no good as a manager he would have been dumped ages ago, but he is still around since the beggining for some reason.
That´s my two cents.

 

[indra]

Indeed, McGuinness is considered by many in the music business to be an excellent manager. Apparently, he's a very tough negotiator who always tries to get the best for his clients.
And I think herein lies part of the reason for his comment. It's often said about U2 that they're a band of four and a corporation of five. Thus, Bono, Edge, Adam & Larry are the creative team and with McGuinness they're also the U2 brand. Thus, McGuinness has next to no creative input in the band. I think I also read somewhere that he doesn't even want to have it. He knows his limitations and he's not the one having to perform it all. His job is to look after the (financial) interests of the band, not to steer U2 in a particular musical direction. And so he tries to get the best for his clients whichever road they choose. It's not distancing himself from a particular style, it's protecting the manager - band relation.

I think you nailed it. Yeah he gets paid. Very handsomely. But he's always looked out for his clients best interests and helped to make them very, very rich men.

 

[Knuckle]

How do you know he doesn't say this with every tour. To me it just sounds like a good manager, one that trusts the artist and doesn't try and mold them.

And as for Mofo, that's Larry doing some of the best drumming to date.

I know, that's what I meant (about Mofo being some tremendous drumming). I agree with you completely. That's why it's just frustrating to hear it obscured by the other white noise in the song.

 

[packcrush]

With all the talk of re-recording Pop, Mofo is the one song that I'd love to hear re-worked with more Larry and Adam and less sounds like nails on a blackboard. Nonetheless, I still love the tune.

Nails on a blackboard? White noise?!!

Heresy!!

Thats Edge's Whammy effect; and we love it.

(Or at least I do )

 

[Zootomic]

Indeed, McGuinness is considered by many in the music business to be an excellent manager.

An 'excellent manager' wouldn't have allowed his clients to become so horrendously overexposed in the late eighties to the point that the band had to reinvent themselves. An 'excellent manager' wouldn't have allowed the ticket fiasco to occur earlier this year which resulted in the band themselves having to step in and straighten things out. A manager is supposed to handle the business side of the band so the band themselves can just concentrate on making the music. However, throughout U2's career the band members have had to handle and fix things that should have been handled by their so-called 'excellent manager'. No, McGuinness is a mediocre manager who got lucky.

 

[lazarus]

Well if McGuinne$$ didn't like POP, it just underlines for me how much of ballsy record that was to make. Of course he's not a fan--it wasn't an easy sell. ATYCLB must have been an orgasmic experience for him.

Their manager cares only about one thing: MONEY. I guess you'd call him a good manager if that's your only qualification. Fighting for big record contracts doesn't make you some kind of a hero.

In my opinion, U2 should have fired his ass, and brought in someone younger who can actually relate to the average person and how much they make in a year. Maybe then there would be some ticket prices that were reasonable. You can't expect the band to know how much things cost and how hard it is for people to afford things, but a business man should.

McGuinne$$ is just another capitalist scumbag, nothing special about him. Pearl Jam's manager Kelly Curtis (if they're still using the same person) is someone I admire. The band may not be making multi-platinum albums any longer, but they still play to huge crowds, and make more than enough money to be comfortable while still living in the real world.

 

[BVS]

An 'excellent manager' wouldn't have allowed his clients to become so horrendously overexposed in the late eighties to the point that the band had to reinvent themselves. An 'excellent manager' wouldn't have allowed the ticket fiasco to occur earlier this year which resulted in the band themselves having to step in and straighten things out. A manager is supposed to handle the business side of the band so the band themselves can just concentrate on making the music. However, throughout U2's career the band members have had to handle and fix things that should have been handled by their so-called 'excellent manager'. No, McGuinness is a mediocre manager who got lucky.

WTF???
So they wouldn't have "had to reinvent themselves"? We would have never gotten AB if that hadn't happened.

Ticket fiasco? Managers aren't gods, they can't see everything. This ticket fiasco had several factors many of which the manager has no control over.

A mediocre manager would have never seen the potential in U2 25 years ago.

 

[Zoomerang96]

wow, i couldn't agree more lazarus.

pearl 7am are where it's at...i've always admired their stand against ticketmaster.

mcguiness is a lawyer, essentially. he's only there for the money, and of course he wet his pants when he heard how accessable and simple the last two albums were.

 

[BVS]

In my opinion, U2 should have fired his ass, and brought in someone younger who can actually relate to the average person and how much they make in a year. Maybe then there would be some ticket prices that were reasonable. You can't expect the band to know how much things cost and how hard it is for people to afford things, but a business man should.

Show me one other band who put on a production as big as U2 that sells floor tickets less than 50 bucks. Just one.

Show me one other band the size of U2 that sells tickets less than U2.

 

[Zoomerang96]

pearl 7am instantly sold out all their canadian dates on their current tour, and none of the tickets were even close to being as expensive as u2's.

 

[BVS]

pearl 7am instantly sold out all their canadian dates on their current tour, and none of the tickets were even close to being as expensive as u2's.

But do they have near the production or are they as big as U2?

I love PJ, third best show I've ever seen. But they couldn't do multiple nights in a city like Chicago, they couldn't do stadiums in Europe, they are just in a different league than U2. I'm not saying that's a good or bad thing just different league.

 

[Zoomerang96]

different league size wise? to a degree, of course.

but they fill out arena's everywhere in north america, same as u2.

and as for who puts on a better show, i'm sure most who've actually seen pearl 7am will tell you that it's nice to have each show mean something special as opposed to the canned copy of a u2 theatrical experience, where no changes can really be expected from night to night.

reading about pearl 7am's performance in my home town last week, and it makes me appreciate bands who are willing to actually approach each show differently.

 

[BVS]

different league size wise? to a degree, of course.

but they fill out arena's everywhere in north america, same as u2.

and as for who puts on a better show, i'm sure most who've actually seen pearl 7am will tell you that it's nice to have each show mean something special as opposed to the canned copy of a u2 theatrical experience, where no changes can really be expected from night to night.

reading about pearl 7am's performance in my home town last week, and it makes me appreciate bands who are willing to actually approach each show differently.

Yes they can fill arenas, but only one night per city.

Now as far as the different show everynight if it wasn't for the internet none of us would be the wiser.

I think people need to take a step back and see if they like the show and quit comparing it to the show the night before that they didn't see.

I've seen PJ now 7 times, once in a club way back in the day, some in arenas, and some in outdoor venues. Some shows were greatest hit shows, some were too obscure for most, and some a good mix. Some were great, some were good, and one I almost left(and I've never wanted to leave a show).

 

[U2girl]

An 'excellent manager' wouldn't have allowed his clients to become so horrendously overexposed in the late eighties to the point that the band had to reinvent themselves. An 'excellent manager' wouldn't have allowed the ticket fiasco to occur earlier this year which resulted in the band themselves having to step in and straighten things out. A manager is supposed to handle the business side of the band so the band themselves can just concentrate on making the music. However, throughout U2's career the band members have had to handle and fix things that should have been handled by their so-called 'excellent manager'. No, McGuinness is a mediocre manager who got lucky.

Overexposure was kind of intended from the band, they wanted to be big from the start. Also it wasn't overexposure that made them reinvent themselves but the (US) critics that flamed Rattle and Hum - album and movie.

As for ticket fiasco - McGuiness is only a part of U2 organisation. This topic was beaten to death.

Regarding this thread, I think that was a bit too much reading into that quote. I think it means "I support whatever they want to do, I trust them."

What I like about his managing is how he got U2 the copyright to all of their music, and I think a better average on album revenue percentage than most bands. And that of course he saw the potential in them 25 years ago.
Money? It's a part of the equation once you're as big as U2. If anyone should take the blame it's U2's popularity.
(I'd love to see the day Madonna or Paul McCartney or Rolling Stones charge anywhere near 50 dollars for the cheapest tickets)

Comparisons to Pearl Jam don't even apply.

 

[U2girl]

.

 

[Ellay]

[B
Their manager cares only about one thing: MONEY. I guess you'd call him a good manager if that's your only qualification. Fighting for big record contracts doesn't make you some kind of a hero.
[/B]

This has got to be one of the most ridiculous things Ive ever read on this forum..

If that were true, don't you think they WOULD have fired him long ago.

Do you really think the band still have to fight for big record contracts.

Island must be so pissed off having them on their books..... not.

 

[Popmartijn]

pearl 7am instantly sold out all their canadian dates on their current tour, and none of the tickets were even close to being as expensive as u2's.

Well, I read plenty of bitching about their $100 tickets.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

first on pearl jam... all i know is what they do in new york, and they sold out the garden on multiple dates on their last tour, and also sold out the nassau coliseum, as well. plus i know they sold out three dates in boston, as well. and of course we all know they could play 20 consecutive shows in seattle and they'd all sell out. so they can certainly sell out multiple dates in cities... as many as u2 could? probably not. could they sell out all these shows if htey charged as much as u2 did? again, probably not. but they can sell out multiple dates in the same city, so don't sell them short on that side.

as for the shows... if a non-u2 and/or non-pearl jam fanatic starts talking to me about concerts, i baisicly tell them this... if you're going to see just one show, see u2. if you're going to see a couple of shows back to back, see pearl jam or bruce springsteen. each show will have a completely different and unique feel to it. that's something that u2 simply can't claim.

that said, from november 22, 2004 to november, 22 2005, i'll probably have seen u2 a combined 12 times... i said for the casual fan it would be great to see pearl jam multiple times... for a hardcore lunatic, ya can't beat u2...


as for the comments paulie mcg made about pop... i'm guessing that his dislike for the idea had something to do with u2 running another massive tour that would make little to no money in the end, just like zootv. yes, that may seem "capitalistic" and "in it for the money," but he is the manager... the money is his job.

 

[lazarus]

Show me one other band who put on a production as big as U2 that sells floor tickets less than 50 bucks. Just one.

Show me one other band the size of U2 that sells tickets less than U2.

A bit of an unfair question, in that besides the Rolling Stones, there ISN'T a band the size of U2 that is still around. I don't even know if you can count the Stones, because their new album won't likely sell half as much copies as either of U2's recent releases.

The real comparison should be between U2 and the kind of band they purport to be. They want to be as vital as bands like The Killers, BRMC, Franz Ferdinand, Radiohead, whatever, but they place themselves on this celestial peak of accessibility in the live format. It's not too hard for the average kid to save up to see those other bands; good luck finding the money to see U2.

New Order, Depeche Mode, R.E.M., and The Cure started around the same time as U2. How much are they charging? Yeah, they never broke through the stratosphere, but they've managed to survive all these years, and all were groundbreaking bands with legions of dedicated fans.

Certainly U2 has EARNED the right to charge whatever the hell they want; I don't think anyone here disputes that. But if you don't want to appear like a Dinosaur Act, don't charge Dinosaur Act prices. Yeah, they are cheaper than the Stones, The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, whoever. But is that the category you even want to put U2 into? Is that some mark of honor, charging the least of all the inflated-price classic rock bands?

Lastly, about the cost of the production: it's been said that at the end of the ZooTV tour, the band members only pulled in about $25,000 each (not including merchandising--which is a windfall to be sure). How much do you think they each made after the Elevation tour?

There are many ways to split the difference, and I'd suggest the band is taking WAY more than they need to. How much would they each personally lose by dropping ticket prices $15? How much would they gain by making the shows more accessible to people who can't afford big shows?

 

[namkcuR]

Also it wasn't overexposure that made them reinvent themselves but the (US) critics that flamed Rattle and Hum - album and movie.

No, that is wrong. The critics flamed U2 because they thought U2 were putting themselves in the rock pantheon with the Beatles and Dylan, et al. U2 have flatly denied this and explained that they made the record as fans.

The reason U2 reinvented themselves is because they were hungry for something completely different. They had become superstars with a certain style and sound and as Larry put it, they felt like a human jukebox and they felt like if they kept going in that direction, they would be locked into a niche(soundwise, stylewise) and their creativity would be stifled. In laymen's terms, they were bored of what they were doing, and bored of themselves. They were actually tired of it. According to Edge, along with several others, they were less than enchanted with the Lovetown Tour and were anxious for it to be over so they could turn their image, sound, attitude, their whole way of being, on its head. Their state of boredom at the point may, ironically, be at least partially responsible for the spontenatiety that some people here(i.e. Axver) adore so much about Lovetown. At any rate, it was this boredom, fear of being locked into a certain niche, and desire for and hunger for something totally new and totally different and envelope pushing, that caused U2 to reinvent themselves and be what they were in the 90s, that caused them to want to 'dream it all up again'.

 

[Utoo]

No, that is wrong. The critics flamed U2 because they thought U2 were putting themselves in the rock pantheon with the Beatles and Dylan, et al. U2 have flatly denied this and explained that they made the record as fans.

The reason U2 reinvented themselves is because they were hungry for something completely different. They had become superstars with a certain style and sound and as Larry put it, they felt like a human jukebox and they felt like if they kept going in that direction, they would be locked into a niche(soundwise, stylewise) and their creativity would be stifled. In laymen's terms, they were bored of what they were doing, and bored of themselves. They were actually tired of it. According to Edge, along with several others, they were less than enchanted with the Lovetown Tour and were anxious for it to be over so they could turn their image, sound, attitude, their whole way of being, on its head. Their state of boredom at the point may, ironically, be at least partially responsible for the spontenatiety that some people here(i.e. Axver) adore so much about Lovetown. At any rate, it was this boredom, fear of being locked into a certain niche, and desire for and hunger for something totally new and totally different and envelope pushing, that caused U2 to reinvent themselves and be what they were in the 90s, that caused them to want to 'dream it all up again'.

That's all absolutely true. But, U2Girl's comments are true, as well. Part of the reason Bono so happily created The Fly was because of the ridiculous rockstar-god-hero expectations that had been thrust upon them....The Fly was a "fuck you" to those who had expected them to be rock heroes. It was something of a, "You want this, you got it--to the extreme." That said, your point is also valid and true, namkcuR. Musically & in their hearts, the band wanted more. Both feelings prompted the wonderful development of the AB/ZooTV U2. And it was good!