Final Results: Rate the Song Series, 2011-2012

[Nick66]

OK, I lied...here a little more research...some thoughts on Zooropa, along these same lines:

"I thought of Zooropa (the record) at the time as a work of genius. I really thought our pop discipline was matching our experimentation and this was our Sgt. Pepper. The truth is our pop disciplines were letting us down. We didn't create hits. We didn't quite deliver the songs. And what would Sgt. Pepper be without the pop songs?"
-Bono, 2005

 

[digitize]

Oh, and as bonus, here's some thoughts on Zooropa, along these same lines:

a) Keep in mind that Bono references his 1993 state of mind and implies that, back then, he didn't care about hits.
b) I don't enjoy Sgt. Pepper's at all, so I'm not sure why the comparison would mean anything to me. I find Zooropa to be much more enjoyable than Sgt. Pepper's, but not because of the hits it delivers. Other people (potentially including yourself) may, and that's great. They're just different than me.

 

[cobl04]

Those quotes illustrate exactly why Bono frustrates many fans. Also musicians lie, Bono lies, and 05 Bono =/= 97 Bono.

 

[LemonMelon]

Bitchy hindsight Bono. Meaningless. Reflecting back on what they should have done is radically different from what they were trying to do at the time. Find me some quotes from 1996 and 1997 that state the band was making a pop record, ultimately giving us something different.

 

[corianderstem]

Well, clearly they don't think the song Zooropa was a complete miss, or they wouldn't have played it at every show on the 2011 North American leg. (That still blows me away they did that.)

... was this supposed to be some round-about way of telling us what misguided fans we are for loving Zooropa so much? I've lost track of this wonderful argument.

 

[Nick66]

If U2 had been given an extra 3 months with Pop, it wouldn't have sounded like ATYCLB. The major complaint that they have about the record is that it was rushed. They weren't shooting for accessibility and missed, they simply weren't allotted enough time to properly flesh out some of their ideas.

I didn't know there were any U2 fans who actually believed this "it was rushed" story. Even McG doesn't buy that one. That is to say, yes, they ran out of time, but that wasn't the reason for Pop's problems (if you're inclined to think Pop has problems). The notion that Pop would be a dramatically different album with even more time in the studio than they had (and they had a lot as it was) just isn't credible. Yeah, the record would likely sound more "finished" and "polished"...but it would still be Pop.

And I've never heard anyone say that Pop sounded like ATYCLB. That's a first.

 

[corianderstem]

No, I think he's saying that if they'd had 3 more months, they would have gotten closer to their original ideas, NOT that it would magically become as accessible as ATYCLB.

 

[digitize]

Some various thoughts on this subject, whatever it actually is:

One of the things that I love about U2 is how they have some powerful hits, but a lot more to them than that. That listing of five hits (what was it? WOWY, One, Streets, Sunday Bloody Sunday, New Year's Day, in some order?) contains five songs that I think are really great. Are they my five favorite? Of course not. But I admire that U2 have created five hits like that, because they are emotionally captivating, they have a lot of longevity, and they are interesting. Much more interesting than most of pop radio... really in any time period, in my opinion. But hits like that really served to grab me and make me look at U2's catalog. I not only listened to it, I researched it to figure out background about each album. Albums like Zooropa and Pop are tough for anyone listening casually, because it takes more than just a casual listen to fully understand them. And that is okay. After really taking time to digest U2's whole catalog, my list of favorite songs is not at all those five songs. It's closer to Interference's list. I don't think that either list deserves criticism or ridicule, honestly. They just reflect different levels of exposure. Is it possible to really listen to and understand U2's full catalog and have a list of favorite songs like the more casual-fan-esque one? Absolutely, and once again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But I really appreciate that U2 have such an interesting back catalog with songs that I personally find even more interesting than a lot of greatest hits.

 

[digitize]

I didn't know there were any U2 fans who actually believed this "it was rushed" story. Even McG doesn't buy that one. That is to say, yes, they ran out of time, but that wasn't the reason for Pop's problems (if you're inclined to think Pop has problems). The notion that Pop would be a dramatically different album with even more time in the studio than they had (and they had a lot as it was) just isn't credible. Yeah, the record would likely sound more "finished" and "polished"...but it would still be Pop.

That is somewhere where we definitely agree.

 

[Nick66]

And, on cue, whenever Bono says anything someone on Interference disagrees with, the "Bono lies" meme comes out.

 

[corianderstem]

I'm pretty sure 99% of the people who pull that out are just joking and don't actually think he's a liar.

But the point about his comments being shaded by hindsight is, I think, accurate.

 

[digitize]

And, on cue, whenever Bono says anything someone on Interference disagrees with, the "Bono lies" meme comes out.

Is it really deniable, though, that (at least publicly) Bono seemed to be in a very different mindset in the mid 90s versus in 2005?

 

[LemonMelon]

Yeah, the record would likely sound more "finished" and "polished"...but it would still be Pop.

Exactly.

So what's your point here? How was its inaccessibility an "artistic shortcoming?" Where did they fail? Minus some tweaks, it always would have sounded precisely the way they meant it to sound. That's where your original post threw me; U2 didn't go into Pop trying to make a pop album, so why judge it based on imaginary criteria?

And I never once suggested it sounded like ATYCLB. Nobody would ever say that. I thought you were suggesting that U2 would transform it into that, given the chance, because Pop was such a failure. It's one of the myriad reasons many of us dread the thought of U2 remixing Pop.

 

[Nick66]

Some various thoughts on this subject, whatever it actually is:

One of the things that I love about U2 is how they have some powerful hits, but a lot more to them than that. That listing of five hits (what was it? WOWY, One, Streets, Sunday Bloody Sunday, New Year's Day, in some order?) contains five songs that I think are really great. Are they my five favorite? Of course not. But I admire that U2 have created five hits like that, because they are emotionally captivating, they have a lot of longevity, and they are interesting. Much more interesting than most of pop radio... really in any time period, in my opinion. But hits like that really served to grab me and make me look at U2's catalog. I not only listened to it, I researched it to figure out background about each album. Albums like Zooropa and Pop are tough for anyone listening casually, because it takes more than just a casual listen to fully understand them. And that is okay. After really taking time to digest U2's whole catalog, my list of favorite songs is not at all those five songs. It's closer to Interference's list. I don't think that either list deserves criticism or ridicule, honestly. They just reflect different levels of exposure. Is it possible to really listen to and understand U2's full catalog and have a list of favorite songs like the more casual-fan-esque one? Absolutely, and once again, there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. But I really appreciate that U2 have such an interesting back catalog with songs that I personally find even more interesting than a lot of greatest hits.

Nothing to disagree with here.

 

[corianderstem]

Nothing to disagree with here.

Well, keep reading. I'm sure you'll be back on track with something to disagree with soon enough.

 

[LemonMelon]

FWIW, my first U2 album was 1980-1990, but I wasn't captivated by the band until I followed it up with the full albums. The first one was Achtung Baby. I love the old hits, but they weren't what truly grabbed me; it was the back catalog that did it. Axver has almost the same story.

This was also nearly three years before I joined Interference.

 

[Nick66]

Is it really deniable, though, that (at least publicly) Bono seemed to be in a very different mindset in the mid 90s versus in 2005?

No doubt...but. I'd tend to believe what Bono says about an album years later, when he's not trying to sell it, than what he says in the midst of promoting it.

So, yeah, I think his comments about Pop, and Zooropa after the fact are pretty credible. And at the very least they are an accurate reflection of how he feels about those albums now. That, of course, shouldn't take away from anyone's enjoyment of them.

 

[Scorpionac]

And what would Sgt. Pepper be without the pop songs?

Good point. They should've included Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields.

 

[Nick66]

Exactly.

So what's your point here? How was its inaccessibility an "artistic shortcoming?" Where did they fail?

I never said it was an "artistic shortcoming", Bono did.

I never said they "failed" with Pop, Bono did.

My original point, in responding to Dig, is that music should speak for itself, and you shouldn't have to know the circumstances surrounding a record to appreciate it. I merely observed that U2 would agree with me, and provided quotes to that effect.

Minus some tweaks, it always would have sounded precisely the way they meant it to sound.

That's purely speculative on your part. We have no idea how it would have sounded. Well, maybe we do. They had a chance to "tweak" some of the tracks for the 90/00 compilation album. How did those work out for you? And in any event, if it was just a matter of a few "Tweaks" they could have done that at the time.

Exactly.That's where your original post threw me; U2 didn't go into Pop trying to make a pop album, so why judge it based on imaginary criteria?

Actually, from Bono's comments, that's precisely what they intended to do. And I'm not judging it, it's Bono who's judging it by this criteria.

 

[LemonMelon]

Good point. They should've included Penny Lane and Strawberry Fields.

Yes. Replacing When I'm Sixty-Four with Strawberry Fields Forever would have really given it the punchy hooks it needed.

 

[digitize]

My original point, in responding to Dig, is that music should speak for itself, and you shouldn't have to know the circumstances surrounding a record to appreciate it. I merely observed that U2 would agree with me, and provided quotes to that effect.

This may be the root of a difference. This is something that is true for you, in your enjoyment of music. It is not, however, true for me. And it is probably not true for many people here. I really don't think that you are more right than I am, or that I am more right than you are. These opinions just represent different tastes. And I would hazard to guess that Bono, in 2005, would agree with you too. Again, what I really like about U2 is how they really have made music of both varieties. Although I would argue that even some of their more accessible albums are still better with background knowledge.

 

[LemonMelon]

I never said it was an "artistic shortcoming", Bono did.

I never said they "failed" with Pop, Bono did.

My original point, in responding to Dig, is that music should speak for itself, and you shouldn't have to know the circumstances surrounding a record to appreciate it. I merely observed that U2 would agree with me, and provided quotes to that effect.

That's not what you suggested. You suggested the album was a failure because it didn't live up to U2's ethos, which you insinuated was the same throughout their entire 30+ year run. We know this to be false, because there are quotes that suggest as much. You suggested that Pop was a failure because it sought to be commercial and failed to do so. The rest of us are stating the opposite. You provided recent Bono quotes as an example of what Bono probably thought at the time, and now we're discussing if those quotes are useful for this discussion.

If you're now saying that music should speak for itself, I agree with you. But that's not what you were saying at the beginning. Otherwise, "intentions" would be meaningless to you and this discussion would have ended two pages ago. Evidently, we all misunderstood you. This isn't the first time and won't be the last.

 

[Nick66]

That's not what you suggested. You suggested the album was a failure because it didn't live up to U2's ethos, which you insinuated was the same throughout their entire 30+ year run. We know this to be false, because there are quotes that suggest as much. You suggested that Pop was a failure because it sought to be commercial and failed to do so. The rest of us are stating the opposite. You provided recent Bono quotes as an example of what Bono probably thought at the time, and now we're discussing if those quotes are useful for this discussion.

If you're now saying that music should speak for itself, I agree with you. But that's not what you were saying at the beginning. Otherwise, "intentions" would be meaningless to you and this discussion would have ended two pages ago. Evidently, we all misunderstood you.

Dude, go back and read what I actually said. Then get back to me. You're just making stuff up here. I never said a single thing you're attributing to me here. I only passed on what BONO said. Please quote me, as I have you, rather than mischaracterising what I've said. Either you don't understand it, or you're being intentionally obtuse.

And I'm not saying "now" that the music should speak for itself, I said it WHEN THIS CONVERSATION STARTED TWO PAGES AGO:

The music should speak for itself.

Crikey. No point in discussing anything with you if you're not going to read what I've actually written.

 

[LemonMelon]

Pop, in particular, was specifically designed to be a very accessible album to the general listening public. If U2 didn't succeed in delivering that, then they failed as artists (and the band certainly feels that way). What you've described here, in fact, is the exact opposite of what U2 aspires to with their music. More than anything, they want their music to be accessible.

This is the thing, right here. I don't care about anything else in this discussion.

They didn't fail as artists. They weren't actively trying to make an accessible album back in 1997. Maybe they wish they had, but it doesn't matter, because that band didn't make Pop back in in 1997. U2 has changed.

 

[Nick66]

This may be the root of a difference. This is something that is true for you, in your enjoyment of music. It is not, however, true for me. And it is probably not true for many people here. I really don't think that you are more right than I am, or that I am more right than you are. These opinions just represent different tastes. And I would hazard to guess that Bono, in 2005, would agree with you too. Again, what I really like about U2 is how they really have made music of both varieties. Although I would argue that even some of their more accessible albums are still better with background knowledge.

I agree, and said so earlier, that knowing the circumstances surrounding a record can enhance your appreciation for the record. But I still think the music should stand on its own merits. And, the point is, U2 certainly intended for those records to stand on their own and be accessible. They certainly didn't intend for the general public to care about the circumstances surrounding them to appreciate the music.

 

[Nick66]

This is the thing, right here.

They didn't fail as artists. They weren't actively trying to make an accessible album back in 1997.

Whatever. Despite the fact that Bono said exactly the opposite of what you're saying here. And I just gave you the quote. The notion that the biggest band in the world, who was about to embark on the biggest tour in rock history, with one of the biggest promotional campaigns in music history, was not trying to make an accessible record is laughable. Again, don't take my word for it...look at what the actual people in the band have said.

If you don't understand that U2's entire career has been geared towards making radio friendly, accessible music (w/the exception of Passengers, which they didn't put their name on), then you really don't know anything about this band, I'm sorry. Yes, they make great music, but their motive have always been to have as many people listening to it as possible. You don't want to think that U2 cares about accessibility because you like to think you're into bands that don't care about such things. Sorry, that's not U2. NEVER has been. Not during Boy, not during NLOTH.

Here's more Bono lies on the subject for you:

We never wanted to be a garage band. We wanted to get as quick as we could out of the garage...Rock music was most exciting when it was in the 45 [rpm single], when it was disciplined into a single. When the wind starts blowing in the hair, and it meanders off, you can get some great [stuff], but it doesn't interest me as much. The 45 is the pure rock to me. That is why I wanted to be in a band.

Radiohead just looked at the pop machine and the machinations of pop and just said, we don't have it in us, we don't have the energy, to have our way with that. I don't hear [Radiohead's] Thom Yorke singing on the radio. I want to hear Radiohead, extraordinary band that they are, on MTV. I want them setting fire to the imaginations of 16, 15, 14 year old kids.

We did all the things (on Bomb) that we would have done in promoting our first, or second or third albums. There's this poverty of ambition, in terms of what rock people will do to promote their work. That's a critical issue to me. The excitement of punk rock, in the Irish and UK scene when we were coming up, was seeing our favorite band on "Top of the Pops," right next to the "enemy." That would be exciting. We did talk shows, TV shows, back then. It was proof that you believed enough in what you did that you would go out and do this stuff. It was the same with the Beatles. The great moments of rock 'n' roll were never off in some corner of the music world, in a self-constructed ghetto. I don't like that kind of thinking. I know some of it exists, and some of our best friends are part of it. It's not for me.

I used to love Kurt Cobain, when he was telling people "we're a pop band". People would laugh, they thought of it as good old ironic Kurt. But he wasn't being ironic. He was a songwriter, he understands that when a guitar solo is playing the melody of the song, that's pop. That's what the Buzzcocks taught him, who learned it from the Beatles. That's what makes him a pop star, that's what makes it pop music. He wanted to be on MTV, he wanted to be stirring things up. He surprised us all with where he did come out from.

Seriously, if you're just going to ignore 30 years of U2 history and make up what you wish, there's really no point in continuing this.

 

[Diemen]

there's really no point in continuing this.

Hey, here's an idea: don't continue it then.

 

[digitize]

They certainly didn't intend for the general public to care about the circumstances surrounding them to appreciate the music.

I think I can agree with this, for the most part. And in that sense, Zooropa and especially Pop backfired. But I also think that they did definitely intentionally put more into those albums than the average pop listener would generally pick up on (Lemon, for instance, was no accident - the song is pretty bizarre without a good look at the lyrics), which was always part of the enjoyment. And Zooropa always had an element of being wrapped up in ZooTV. But regardless, I find merit in them today when put in context. It makes me realize how brilliant (in my opinion) they are, and helps me relate to them even today. And I personally don't find anything wrong with that, or with people favoring songs from Zooropa and Pop on that basis. But I also would not expect them to be on general public lists on best U2 songs.

 

[Nick66]

Hey, here's an idea: don't continue it then.

Excellent suggestion.

 

[LemonMelon]

If you don't understand that U2's entire career has been geared towards making radio friendly, accessible music

A few iron-clad hits from U2 history:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_arrcEArLY

U2- Elvis Presley and America - YouTube

U2- Exit - YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2lbiS1fris

U2 likes it when people listen to them. Hell, they thrive on it, but to define their purpose so shallowly is wrong. It's like Paul McGuinness is behind your posts.

Bono has changed. His band threw a curveball in the dirt and his perspective had to change in order to save his career. It's a depressing truth, but no less depressing than viewing U2 as a corporation.

Anyway, agreed that there's no point in carrying this one on, really. Two fundamentally different perspectives on the band. Bono's is, I'm sure, more nuanced than either of ours.