Excerpt from the new RS article, "U2: Hymns For the Future" about "Winter" vs Singles

[Salome]

mainstream implies middlebrow -- that it's intended for the broadest audience possible and intended to maximize it's likeableness while minimizing it's offensiveness. it's by definition bland, and it appeals to the lowest common denominator. that doesn't make it low-brow, it just makes it safe and also conservative. it by definition is a sound

popular is just that -- popular. lots of people listen to it. it wasn't necessarily intended for the mainstream, nor was it necessarily intended for mass consumption, but something about it caught hold with the masses and many people chose to consume the product.

I always reckoned that mainstream was more considered 'the common denominator'
while popular is whether something is considered 'desirable'

according to this something can be popular or unpopular with the mainstream the same way as something can be popular or unpopular with the 'underground'

I would presume your definition is the correct one which would mean that U2 indeed has always achieved to be popular instead of being mainstream
they always have wanted to connect with as many people as possible
I don't think they consider any of their albums as a more artistic approach to achieve this than any of their other albums

 

[Irvine511]

I would presume your definition is the correct one which would mean that U2 indeed has always achieved to be popular instead of being mainstream
they always have wanted to connect with as many people as possible
I don't think they consider any of their albums as a more artistic approach to achieve this than any of their other albums

i agree -- i think that some of the arguments being put forth are that U2 has retained their popularity in 2009 because they have consciously made their music more mainstream than it was in, say, 1993.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

What makes you think he's heard an album that you'd only know about from reading reviews? Do you really think Bono sits around surfing the web for well reviewed albums?

I think that’s pretty naïve. You have to hunt that stuff down via reviews because you’re not spending most of your life around music media, producers, label people – particularly A&R people, other artists etc. To think that they could spend the majority of their lives as part of the music industry machine and not have daily conversations about music is ridiculous. Who someone saw last night, what artist has someone buzzed, what blew someone’s mind, where the next big thing is coming from…

And their choice in support acts represents their commercial instinct, not their artistic intelligence. Putting the Black Eyed Peas on the bill is more about selling out stadiums, and likely a thanks to will.i.am, then it is a suggestion that Bono thinks BEP are the cutting edge of hip-hop. I agree it’s annoying to hear Bono champion someone like the Kings of Leon as the greatest thing since sliced bread, and I’m happy to concede that their taste radar might be off, or way off, but it really is naïve to think that they of all people aren’t forever bombarded with new music, new ideas, the new boundary pushers etc. I think that is beyond question. The questions are really in what they’re thinking of what they’re hearing, how they’re judging it, and what they think it means to them. So Bono maybe/maybe not hears Merriweather Post Pavilion – does he just discard it, think its crap? Or does he really love it, but think all of that sort of thing is meaningless to U2 now that they’ve reached a stage that he thinks is beyond needing to learn anything new? That’s where I think the important questions lie.

They don’t need to push themselves as hard as they used to. That’s obvious. We’d love them to, but they don’t need to. But what do they think? Do they think they are not career defining anymore, only legacy cementing?

And yeah, I don’t think Bono has to waste a second trying to get a ‘leaked’ copy of the Decemberists album. Just quietly, I reckon he gets whatever the fuck he wants, whenever and wherever he fucking wants it. But in a sense you’re right, I doubt he/they ever hunt stuff down. Not just never have to, but never would.

 

[nathan1977]

i agree -- i think that some of the arguments being put forth are that U2 has retained their popularity in 2009 because they have consciously made their music more mainstream than it was in, say, 1993.

The songs are better, too.

 

[revolver]

first, you're still basing your opinions on other critics, "alt-" or not. i read a great many movie critics and i enjoy their opinions and i find many of them challenging, but the point is to read the critics critically. you pointed towards the fact that "many" of the "alt-" critics -- alt-critics who use a star rating system, no less -- didn't like "Slumdog" as proof that it's "mainstream pap."

that's been your evidence.

and that's totally fine. it just doesn't seem to me to be the product of much engagement with the material, it seems to me to be veneration of someone with a certain amount of coolness or anti-mainstream cache, and then shaping your own opinions to reflect whomever it is you've been reading.

thus, it ties directly back into your misunderstanding of "popular" and what is "mainstream" and a rather black-and-white understanding of both, that they're necessarily in opposition to one another, and that "mainstream" is likewise the opposite of "good."

You are seriously misreading everything I'm saying. I've not once said I've based my opinion on other critics. The most I've said is that they deserve to be read, and that I take them all into consideration equally, and that you find some to side with eventually - though not all the time.

I never said that alt-critics dislike of Slumdog was my reason for disliking it. I merely said I think there's a reason for their dislike. I said no more, no less than that. In addition, I personally give the film a solid 4 out of 5 stars.

I have also never stated that mainstream and popular were the same. I agreed with you that they weren't and then said that they often cross over. Correlation, that's all, and not nearly all the time. Example: I merely said Slumdog succeeded in the mainstream because of a certain familiarity that many viewers would feel for the material.

Why do you come off so hateful? Out of anyone on this board, you're the only one I can think of whose messages reek of condescendence and know-it-all attitude. I really wish you'd realize this, especially when, up until this point, I hadn't ever attacked you, and have only stated personal opinions, all of which you've endlessly misconstrued. The wide wall of the Internet be damned, it hurts my feelings!

 

[Salome]

So Bono maybe/maybe not hears Merriweather Post Pavilion – does he just discard it, think its crap? Or does he really love it, but think all of that sort of thing is meaningless to U2 now that they’ve reached a stage that he thinks is beyond needing to learn anything new? That’s where I think the important questions lie.

perhaps, it's even more simple and he just isn't particularly moved one way or the other by the current alternative scene

I spent years mostly listening to Sonic Youth, Pixies, Guided by Voices, Jon Spencer Blues Explosion, Palace Music and Aphex Twin
at the moment I'm not into any of the lauded 'alternative' bands
I'm sure that doesn't say much about these bands, it just doesn't particularly connect with me
and I'm about 15 years younger than Bono

I also don't care much about Bono's name dropping anyway
at least 90% of the artists he has gushed over the past decades I don't care about

 

[ozeeko]

I have still yet to hear an amazing underground band these days. Everything that is recommended to me just sounds like stylistic exercises in something already done, without interesting songwriting to back it up. I'm still living in the past, discovering old shit. So much to be discovered.

 

[revolver]

I have still yet to hear an amazing underground band these days. Everything that is recommended to me just sounds like stylistic exercises in something already done, without interesting songwriting to back it up. I'm still living in the past, discovering old shit. So much to be discovered.

What is underground anyway, you know? Cause I hear plenty of great "small" bands, but are any really underground with the internet nowadays?

But I agree...so much to be discovered. I used to be naive enough to think that I'd never find something old and new to impress me again. I haven't thought that way for 6 years and never plan to.

 

[ravin30000]

If anybody's heard the Lillywhite interview on NPR, around about 10 minutes in he talks about how U2 don't want to be completely experimental because they want to live in the "real world." He goes on to state that they don't want to go the road of Radiohead, because they're more a "niche" kind of thing. They would rather compete with the Kings of Leon and the Killers because, as I understand, they are bringing it to the masses.

Sigh. This saddens me. Personally, I think Radiohead are exactly who U2 should emulate and put themselves up against. To me, they're really the standard bearers right now, and will influence countless bands in the coming years. Hell, the bands who U2 consider THEIR COMPETITION have already been influenced by Radiohead. What matters more, making music on your own terms that finds its own audience or being in some artificial corporate big league of artists?

 

[popacrobat]

who said U2 can't be influenced by radiohead? I don't want U2 to emulate Radiohead. I have Radiohead to listen to if I want to listen to Radiohead. I want U2 to be who they have always been. What they have always been is up to debate between all of you for endless hours, but you are shitting yourselves if you think U2 don't want to be the best band in the world, having their tour sell out, having their albums sell by the boatload. They want to be big and write great music. In my opinion, at least in Bono's head, they've always wanted to be as big or bigger than the Beatles - who they obviously adore.

You may or may not like the twists and turns U2 makes. I understand why people dislike All That You Can't Leave Behind and Atomic Bomb- even if I enjoy those albums. But it's not like any of their albums, sans Passengers, has been some off-beat, odd little artsy album. Zooropa is the closest they've come to that, and even that had songs like Stay, Dirty Day, The First Time which I don't consider to be off the wall craziness and experimenting.

U2 have always been about bringing it to the masses. That's who they are and what they do.

 

[Irvine511]

The songs are better, too.

no one wants to hear that the fact that because U2 have actually gotten better, more people like them.

 

[ozeeko]

If anybody's heard the Lillywhite interview on NPR, around about 10 minutes in he talks about how U2 don't want to be completely experimental because they want to live in the "real world." He goes on to state that they don't want to go the road of Radiohead, because they're more a "niche" kind of thing. They would rather compete with the Kings of Leon and the Killers because, as I understand, they are bringing it to the masses.

Sigh. This saddens me. Personally, I think Radiohead are exactly who U2 should emulate and put themselves up against. To me, they're really the standard bearers right now, and will influence countless bands in the coming years. Hell, the bands who U2 consider THEIR COMPETITION have already been influenced by Radiohead. What matters more, making music on your own terms that finds its own audience or being in some artificial corporate big league of artists?

Well, this certainly speaks volumnes, this whole new insight into U2's tastes these days.

Prior to AB, U2 were listening to rave music, to industrial, to alternative acts, The Pixies, Sonic Youth, Nine Inch Nails.

Now they want to be like The Killers?

I don't even want to talk about it.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

no one wants to hear that the fact that because U2 have actually gotten better, more people like them.

I think that’s more to do with simplification.

 

[Irvine511]

Why do you come off so hateful? Out of anyone on this board, you're the only one I can think of whose messages reek of condescendence and know-it-all attitude. I really wish you'd realize this, especially when, up until this point, I hadn't ever attacked you, and have only stated personal opinions, all of which you've endlessly misconstrued. The wide wall of the Internet be damned, it hurts my feelings!

it's not my job to babysit you. i haven't been hateful and i haven't attacked you personally i haven't been rude and i haven't used any foul language -- i've stated my problems with several of the conclusions you've drawn and the reasons why. you're free to disagree with me.

my general problem is that i've seen a consistent pattern of several posters (not just you) who i don't think have a solid gasp of U2's history and what, exactly, they were up to from 1991-1994, and i find many of the comparisons to that now mythic era to today's albums to be really poorly reasoned. that's the broad point, and that's the broad angle i'm working here.

the more specific issue i have is, ironically, the flip side of your issue with me. there seems to be an assumption that if something (a review, a movie, an album) has some sort of veneer of credibility with the "alt-" crowd, then it is by definition A Good Thing. there's a sneer that comes across there, a sneer at people who might actually prefer Bomb to Achtung. and that's what i'm objecting to.

 

[ozeeko]

another thing, I'm sick of hearing these condescending comments about Radiohead coming from Bono, as if he knows something they don't. Radiohead is the closest thing to a band that rivals U2, to a band that could be considered their peer, next to R.E.M. and Depeche Mode. Why does he consider Radiohead an out of touch with reality band? Has he heard their latest album? Does he not hear emotion in any of those songs? Does he not hear melody? Is there really nothing else better out there other than "Somebody told me, that you had a boyfriend, that looked like a girlfriend...etc." U2 are so out of touch its not even funny...it's just sad.

 

[Irvine511]

I have also never stated that mainstream and popular were the same. I agreed with you that they weren't and then said that they often cross over. Correlation, that's all, and not nearly all the time. Example: I merely said Slumdog succeeded in the mainstream because of a certain familiarity that many viewers would feel for the material.

i did make a mistake here. i mixed together your posts and ozeeko's posts.

 

[AEKU2]

it's not my job to babysit you. i haven't been hateful and i haven't attacked you personally i haven't been rude and i haven't used any foul language -- i've stated my problems with several of the conclusions you've drawn and the reasons why. you're free to disagree with me.

my general problem is that i've seen a consistent pattern of several posters (not just you) who i don't think have a solid gasp of U2's history and what, exactly, they were up to from 1991-1994, and i find many of the comparisons to that now mythic era to today's albums to be really poorly reasoned. that's the broad point, and that's the broad angle i'm working here.

the more specific issue i have is, ironically, the flip side of your issue with me. there seems to be an assumption that if something (a review, a movie, an album) has some sort of veneer of credibility with the "alt-" crowd, then it is by definition A Good Thing. there's a sneer that comes across there, a sneer at people who might actually prefer Bomb to Achtung. and that's what i'm objecting to.

 

[AEKU2]

another thing, I'm sick of hearing these condescending comments about Radiohead coming from Bono, as if he knows something they don't. Radiohead is the closest thing to a band that rivals U2, to a band that could be considered their peer, next to R.E.M. and Depeche Mode. Why does he consider Radiohead an out of touch with reality band? Has he heard their latest album? Does he not hear emotion in any of those songs? Does he not hear melody? Is there really nothing else better out there other than "Somebody told me, that you had a boyfriend, that looked like a girlfriend...etc." U2 are so out of touch its not even funny...it's just sad.

Im sick of hearing this Radiohead vs U2 bullsh!t. For fuck's sake Radiohead is not even a live band. They are incomparable. This is why experimental cant be taken too far, as they need to be taken into a LIVE context. Sheesh, U2 are the perennial LIVE BAND. The experimentation and the LP's are not the end, purely a means to get to the LIVE STAGE. The end is the LIVE SETTING. If you havent figured out how U2 ticks you never will.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Hey? Radiohead are, simply, fucking phenomenal live.

I don’t like the Radiohead v U2 comparisons either, they are drastically different outfits from the surface to the core (and I don’t think Bono is taking shots, but I do agree that a lot of what he says about them is painful to read), but knocking Radiohead as ‘not a live band’ is utterly ridiculous.

 

[ozeeko]

Im sick of hearing this Radiohead vs U2 bullsh!t. For fuck's sake Radiohead is not even a live band. They are incomparable. This is why experimental cant be taken too far, as they need to be taken into a LIVE context. Sheesh, U2 are the perennial LIVE BAND. The experimentation and the LP's are not the end, purely a means to get to the LIVE STAGE. The end is the LIVE SETTING. If you havent figured out how U2 ticks you never will.

No offense, but you're talking out of your ass.

Youtube some Radiohead live clips, they can play everything live that they play on record. They're technically better musicians than U2. Not to mention they change shit up and play new songs, songs they're working on, in front of large crowds, something U2 hasn't done since when? 1986?

Look, i love both bands, but you're just really really wrong on this issue.

 

[revolver]

it's not my job to babysit you. i haven't been hateful and i haven't attacked you personally i haven't been rude and i haven't used any foul language -- i've stated my problems with several of the conclusions you've drawn and the reasons why. you're free to disagree with me.

my general problem is that i've seen a consistent pattern of several posters (not just you) who i don't think have a solid gasp of U2's history and what, exactly, they were up to from 1991-1994, and i find many of the comparisons to that now mythic era to today's albums to be really poorly reasoned. that's the broad point, and that's the broad angle i'm working here.

the more specific issue i have is, ironically, the flip side of your issue with me. there seems to be an assumption that if something (a review, a movie, an album) has some sort of veneer of credibility with the "alt-" crowd, then it is by definition A Good Thing. there's a sneer that comes across there, a sneer at people who might actually prefer Bomb to Achtung. and that's what i'm objecting to.

I find your first sentence to be uncalled for.

I'm sorry you take my comments in such a way as you mention in your last paragraph, but honestly, they're not meant that way. This is where we're on the wrong page. You're assuming something about me as I've assumed something about you. There is no sneer whatsoever, only a wish that U2 were riskier nowadays, or that Slumdog didn't seem so highly structured and cookie cutter to me. These are where my alt-critics comments come in - not that I necessarily always agree with them, but that I can understand their critiques.

I hope we understand each other better now.

 

[Irvine511]

what are your problems with the "structure" of Slumdog and how does the structure detract from the film?

i am going to bed now but i will read your response tomorrow.

 

[ozeeko]

All i gotta say is, Slumdog Millionaire was a pretty disturbing film to watch. Sure, it had an uplifting ending, but Christ what a nightmare you had to go thru to get there.

 

[LemonMelon]

No offense, but you're talking out of your ass.

Youtube some Radiohead live clips, they can play everything live that they play on record. They're technically better musicians than U2. Not to mention they change shit up and play new songs, songs they're working on, in front of large crowds, something U2 hasn't done since when? 1986?

Look, i love both bands, but you're just really really wrong on this issue.

I've seen them for myself and couldn't agree more. They tore through In Rainbows. Weird Fishes/Arpeggi in particular was .

 

[U2DMfan]

fuck's sake Radiohead is not even a live band. They are incomparable. .

Wow.



__________________________________
What you guys are discussing...
If you are trying to gauge the intentions of an artist, and how it fits in the context of "mainstream" it can be nothing but subjective.

There is no objective standard, you listen with your ears and either think one way or the other. It's like comparing actual song quality.

 

[ravin30000]

who said U2 can't be influenced by radiohead? I don't want U2 to emulate Radiohead.

By emulating Radiohead, I meant their philosophy, not their sound. I want u2 to do their thing, too. It just seems like lately they're more obsessed with writing songs to fill stadiums than exploring their art. I like the last three albums and there are some great songs on them. But I guess the reason I love 90s u2 so much is because they were willing to say fuck it and do their own thing without being overly concerned whether the public was in love with them or if they had a hit "45" as Bono calls it. Radiohead may not be on the charts, but 20 years from now In Rainbows will hold up just like Achtung has.

 

[lazarus]

there's a sneer that comes across there, a sneer at people who might actually prefer Bomb to Achtung. and that's what i'm objecting to.

Yeah, everything being subjective and all that--but those people deserve to get sneered at.

And I love The Bomb.

 

[Salome]

It just seems like lately they're more obsessed with writing songs to fill stadiums than exploring their art.

perhaps U2 are writing the music they want to write
it's not entirely impossible you know

besides that, they just released an album where the first 4 songs take up well over 20 minutes and the last 3 songs include a reworked hymn and a song musically based on an ambient piece
how this translates to blatant attempts to trick people into buying concert tickets is beyond me
perhaps I'm just nto into art

 

[An Cat Gav]

By emulating Radiohead, I meant their philosophy, not their sound. I want u2 to do their thing, too. It just seems like lately they're more obsessed with writing songs to fill stadiums than exploring their art. I like the last three albums and there are some great songs on them. But I guess the reason I love 90s u2 so much is because they were willing to say fuck it and do their own thing without being overly concerned whether the public was in love with them or if they had a hit "45" as Bono calls it. Radiohead may not be on the charts, but 20 years from now In Rainbows will hold up just like Achtung has.

Loving your posts, couldn't agree more.

 

[standrums]

By emulating Radiohead, I meant their philosophy, not their sound. I want u2 to do their thing, too. It just seems like lately they're more obsessed with writing songs to fill stadiums than exploring their art. I like the last three albums and there are some great songs on them. But I guess the reason I love 90s u2 so much is because they were willing to say fuck it and do their own thing without being overly concerned whether the public was in love with them or if they had a hit "45" as Bono calls it. Radiohead may not be on the charts, but 20 years from now In Rainbows will hold up just like Achtung has.

So will NLOTH