New album talk: I heard that it was big but this... is really big

[YBORCITY]

Instagram Another photo shoot ?

very interesting

 

[Hollow Island]

Bono's biggest concern with U2 is them remaining relevant in the public eye. There's nothing wrong with that.

Jesus Christ, there is everything wrong with that. I can't believe I read such an idiotic statement on a forum devoted to art, for fucks sake.

If an artists' greatest concern is the same as that of the Kardashians they should go away forever.

Bono's greatest concern should be to make good music. That should be his only concern with U2: to make the best album they can, nothing more and nothing less. That should be their only goal. The rest will take care of itself, or it won't. Being big fans of the Velvets and Eno, they should know that chart success means about as much as spunk on a potato.

Fuck "relevancy." It's a meaningless term. Does it refer to popularity, or to what the work says? Does it refer to originality or the passion it inspires in fans, however small the base is? I consider Tomorrow's Harvest to be more relevant than the Daft Punk record, but I doubt anyone would agree because it's an undefinable term.

 

[bonocomet]

Maybe it isn't meant to be interpreted that way. It's possible it's only meant in a way that means he wants their new music to be important to people, or have some meaning in relation to the present time. Same as anyone would want their job, or what they spend the majority of their life doing to have some relevance or importance. Does anyone want to feel their lives or jobs are meaningless? Or that no one cares about what you are working very hard to produce for the enjoyment of others? I don't know, something like that. I just don't think it's as shallow a statement as many want to make it out to be.

 

[mikal]

Jesus Christ, there is everything wrong with that. I can't believe I read such an idiotic statement on a forum devoted to art, for fucks sake.

If an artists' greatest concern is the same as that of the Kardashians they should go away forever.

Bono's greatest concern should be to make good music. That should be his only concern with U2: to make the best album they can, nothing more and nothing less. That should be their only goal. The rest will take care of itself, or it won't. Being big fans of the Velvets and Eno, they should know that chart success means about as much as spunk on a potato.

Fuck "relevancy." It's a meaningless term. Does it refer to popularity, or to what the work says? Does it refer to originality or the passion it inspires in fans, however small the base is? I consider Tomorrow's Harvest to be more relevant than the Daft Punk record, but I doubt anyone would agree because it's an undefinable term.

My sources tell me that it's not in the same light as the Kardashians. It's actually more ala Miley Cyrus. Bono is hoping to bump and grind while sticking his tongue out.

 

[trevgreg]

Maybe it isn't meant to be interpreted that way. It's possible it's only meant in a way that means he wants their new music to be important to people, or have some meaning in relation to the present time. Same as anyone would want their job, or what they spend the majority of their life doing to have some relevance or importance. Does anyone want to feel their lives or jobs are meaningless? Or that no one cares about what you are working very hard to produce for the enjoyment of others? I don't know, something like that. I just don't think it's as shallow a statement as many want to make it out to be.

I agree. They're not going to make everyone happy anyway, even if they only toured small clubs with no video screens in the background... and made electronic music a la Passengers with Bono talking about about journalists in Lebanon over it.

 

[YBORCITY]

No doubt!

Nothing like an old fashioned uninhibited bitchfest to make your fandom look like a bunch of impossible-to-please complaining wankers. It's like we think are all just sitting in the living room here together, but it's a room with very big open bay windows and a busy street outside.

Indeed, great viewpoint!

We have all alluded to someone somewhere in the bowels of Principle that actually read our and the other fan sites forums - you REALLY have to wonder what is thought about us!

 

[LemonMirrorSky]

I always like his words in this interview, "we might lose some of the popkids, but we dont need them"
U2 - Zoo TV - Opening Night (1992) - YouTube

Peter, that Bono in that video is dead. He died round about '98/'99. May his soul rest in peace.

Whoever is fronting the band right now is not the same guy. So might as well forget about it.

 

[BVS]

I always like his words in this interview, "we might lose some of the popkids, but we dont need them"
U2 - Zoo TV - Opening Night (1992) - YouTube

The most overused quote in interference history. Put this into context, it was the early 90's, anything with an "alternative" label, anything that was nonpop was the mainstream. This wasn't dangerous, far from it.

 

[jeevey]

Jesus Christ, there is everything wrong with that. I can't believe I read such an idiotic statement on a forum devoted to art, for fucks sake.

You are on a forum devoted to a popular music act, a band that started playing for audiences when they knew that they were still shit-- well before they could properly play any song. "Art" is only a part of what U2 does, and the audience is the other part. If they made music that they loved and audiences hated they would go straight back to the drawing board and try to figure out where they went wrong. They want it to be authentic and of themselves, yes, but the audience must love it. If they don't, then in the U2 universe something is fundamentally missing.

 

[mikal]

^^^^^^^

What are you talking about? U2 is an Indie Rock band all the way!!!

 

[chork]

First indie band ever to have their own specially-commissioned iPod, yo!!!

 

[DPardue]

I remember the days of running to the drug store the day the new issue of Rolling Stone was released, or waiting an hour for two minutes of MTV news just to get the latest U2 tid bits. That was where ya got your music news back the really. In a sort of Zoo TV ironic kinda way, the overload of information in this 21st century world almost makes me long for the days of simplicity where the news was scant, but yet more exciting...even if it was at times relatively insignificant.

Or maybe it is just that I am getting old.

 

[popacrobat]

First indie band ever to have their own specially-commissioned iPod, yo!!!

speaking of that, my friend sent me an excerpt from a book on Steve Jobs and apple. Apparently that was a really, really big deal to Jobs, and the whole deal almost fell apart because of the iPod being a different color -- and that U2 were going to actually appear in the Vertigo commercial. Bono and U2 were evidently having second thoughts about the commercial and iPod too, but once he saw the black and red iPod in person, they ended up getting the deal done. But it was really surprising to see how much give-and-take there apparently was, since the white iPod was sort of Jobs' baby. didn't really want there to be another color (at the time).

also, they attempted to work out another commercial for Get On Your Boots, but the deal ultimately fell through. I don't think the commercial with Darren McFadden made the same impact. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wYIf5pjQz2I)

 

[david]

Jesus Christ, there is everything wrong with that. I can't believe I read such an idiotic statement on a forum devoted to art, for fucks sake.

If an artists' greatest concern is the same as that of the Kardashians they should go away forever.

Bono's greatest concern should be to make good music. That should be his only concern with U2: to make the best album they can, nothing more and nothing less. That should be their only goal. The rest will take care of itself, or it won't. Being big fans of the Velvets and Eno, they should know that chart success means about as much as spunk on a potato.

Fuck "relevancy." It's a meaningless term. Does it refer to popularity, or to what the work says? Does it refer to originality or the passion it inspires in fans, however small the base is? I consider Tomorrow's Harvest to be more relevant than the Daft Punk record, but I doubt anyone would agree because it's an undefinable term.

What art forum is this? This is a U2 forum. The art of U2 maybe. U2 being one of the biggest selling bands of all time. You read into my comment and put your own meaning into what I was getting at. That's fine. But you can't talk about U2's success without talking about sales. It is what it is. It's just a byproduct of being successful at creating music that millions of people like.. and want to purchase.

 

[bonocomet]

I remember seeing that ad air during the Super Bowl and I about passed out!

 

[U2DMfan]

You are on a forum devoted to a popular music act, band that started playing for audiences when they knew that they were still shit, well before they could properly play any song. "Art" is only a part of what U2 does, and the audience is the other part. If they made music that they loved and audiences hated they would go straight back to the drawing board and try to figure out where they went wrong. They want it to be authentic and of themselves, yes, but the audience must love it. If they don't, then in the U2 universe something is fundamentally missing.

I think there is something that has to be said for creative risk.

Risk is a huge part of the equation here. U2 didn't make the sequel to The Joshua Tree in 1991 in order to please their audience, which is surely what their audience expected and likely wanted to hear. They went in a totally different direction. It was a risk, artistically and commercially. They did what they wanted to do, with the hopes of the audience loving it. They also took a HUGE risk in 1997, in a culture of super-earnest rock, they went ironic and frankly silly. At least superficially. And the tour...it was all very risky.

These days U2 alleviates that risk whenever possible.

If 2013 U2 were in the shoes of 1991 U2, they would have made another album in the style of The Joshua Tree. 2009 U2 were well on their way to partially reinventing some of their sound and scaled it back because it didn't sound authentic. I give them credit for doing that, but it's absolutely telling.

U2 aren't going to move too far away from what 'U2' is to the audience. In this sense, they will keep repeating the stuff that works and taking less risks.

If art was only a part of what U2 were doing from 1980-1997, since then, it's a very small part. U2 want to be loved but they don't want to please their audience at all costs. They never do what the crowd here wants them to do. Never. They are perfectly happy with a brand NEW audience. They go where they want to go and they want people to follow them there.

This goes hand in hand with their idea of attaining that ambition. They've always had the ambition to be the biggest and the best, whatever that means. But they haven't always gone after that ambition in the same way.

This is what some fanboys and fangirls simply fail to understand. U2 changed. So it's one thing to say they want to "figure out what went wrong", which is certainly true, but years ago - they might have just decided to truly erase the drawing board and try something totally new. These days, there is a certain amount of that drawing board that is never, ever going to change. Too risky. That's the artistic balance, how much is U2 just doing what they want to do - and how much are they doing to cater to the expectations of the audience? If this were 1993 instead of 2013, I would have felt a lot better about saying "U2 doesn't really give a shit what we want, yeah they want us to like it, but they're gonna do what they want to do". These days, not as much.

 

[chork]

I was thinking exactly this last week.

I remember writing letters to Principle when I was in high school in the late '80s asking when new music would be coming and getting postcards back from Cecelia Mullen. Still have those.

And swapping newspaper & magazine clippings & boots with fans all over the globe. There was a guy in Austria who used to send me huge packets full of articles.

And remember trading fan books? Little homemade booklets & 'zines that fangirls would get all artsy on; we'd each take a page & leave our mark with glitter & decoupage, then send it on the the next big dork.

The back pages of Propaganda were ideal for this sort of stuff. That's also how I met by first boyfriend.

 

[jeevey]

These days, there is a certain amount of that drawing board that is never, ever going to change. Too risky.

I don't know about that. I've seen too much of human nature to say "never, ever change." For one thing it's a profoundly disrespectful thing to say of another human being. People do surprising things sometimes. I think we can talk in likelihoods, but not nevers.

 

[DPardue]

I'd go around to different record stores and pester the guys behind the counter about release dates...as if they really knew any more than I did. To this day I still comically remember reading of U2 shooting the video to their first single that Rolling Stone mistakenly called "Red Hell Mining Town". I'd also always be sure to buy the USA Today the day of the release or the day after the tour opened. They usually had a nice write up of the show or the new album on the front page of the Life section.

 

[U2DMfan]

I don't know about that. I've seen too much of human nature to say "never, ever change." For one thing it's a profoundly disrespectful thing to say of another human being. People do surprising things sometimes. I think we can talk in likelihoods, but not nevers.

Why are you inferring that I said people never change? I've known plenty of people that have changed. I've certainly changed personally. And I literally said "U2 changed" in the post? It's just that they aren't going to change too much from where they've been since POPmart broke their heart. And they are NEVER, I'll freely say it, NEVER again, going to change a certain part of their sound or the basic songwriting formula. After all, one more 'failure' (always relative to U2's own expectations) and they're likely done anyway.

 

[jeevey]

No need to get tetchy about it. I'm inferring that you said

These days, there is a certain amount of that drawing board that is never, ever going to change.

and I'm saying that I disagree with the use of the word never. It's all good.

 

[LemonMirrorSky]

I think there is something that has to be said for creative risk.

Risk is a huge part of the equation here. U2 didn't make the sequel to The Joshua Tree in 1991 in order to please their audience, which is surely what their audience expected and likely wanted to hear. They went in a totally different direction. It was a risk, artistically and commercially. They did what they wanted to do, with the hopes of the audience loving it. They also took a HUGE risk in 1997, in a culture of super-earnest rock, they went ironic and frankly silly. At least superficially. And the tour...it was all very risky.

These days U2 alleviates that risk whenever possible.

If 2013 U2 were in the shoes of 1991 U2, they would have made another album in the style of The Joshua Tree. 2009 U2 were well on their way to partially reinventing some of their sound and scaled it back because it didn't sound authentic. I give them credit for doing that, but it's absolutely telling.

U2 aren't going to move too far away from what 'U2' is to the audience. In this sense, they will keep repeating the stuff that works and taking less risks.

If art was only a part of what U2 were doing from 1980-1997, since then, it's a very small part. U2 want to be loved but they don't want to please their audience at all costs. They never do what the crowd here wants them to do. Never. They are perfectly happy with a brand NEW audience. They go where they want to go and they want people to follow them there.

This goes hand in hand with their idea of attaining that ambition. They've always had the ambition to be the biggest and the best, whatever that means. But they haven't always gone after that ambition in the same way.

This is what some fanboys and fangirls simply fail to understand. U2 changed. So it's one thing to say they want to "figure out what went wrong", which is certainly true, but years ago - they might have just decided to truly erase the drawing board and try something totally new. These days, there is a certain amount of that drawing board that is never, ever going to change. Too risky. That's the artistic balance, how much is U2 just doing what they want to do - and how much are they doing to cater to the expectations of the audience? If this were 1993 instead of 2013, I would have felt a lot better about saying "U2 doesn't really give a shit what we want, yeah they want us to like it, but they're gonna do what they want to do". These days, not as much.

Once again, you're one of the very few people over here that I agree 100% with.

All you people can say how many ever times you want that, U2 always cared about money and fame, U2 always wanted to be popular.. blah blah blah. The truth is that they just are not the risk-takers that they used to be. Chalk it up to their age or whatever. But that is cold hard fact.

 

[Van Cleef]

Peter, that Bono in that video is dead. He died round about '98/'99. May his soul rest in peace. Whoever is fronting the band right now is not the same guy. So might as well forget about it.

He kicked the bucket after recording TGBHF and Stateless. Or maybe was abducted by ancient aliens. Maybe Giorgio Tsoukalos knows everything.

 

[Van Cleef]

Once again, you're one of the very few people over here that I agree 100% with. All you people can say how many ever times you want that, U2 always cared about money and fame, U2 always wanted to be popular.. blah blah blah. The truth is that they just are not the risk-takers that they used to be. Chalk it up to their age or whatever. But that is cold hard fact.

I vote you and U2DMfan the best. Honorable mentions to lemonfly and Hollow Island.

 

[david]

Bono said himself that you get into a band for all the wrong reasons. U2 of the 80's was about momentum and young restlessness. They weren't a band that was technically proficient, but they had drive and something special as Bono always said. That momentum carried them to 1987 and the release of The Joshua Tree. That album solidified them. What was amazing was that they did it on their own terms and did it by creating timeless music.

But even after 8 years together there were warning signs. Creative differences. They're documented very well during the making of Achtung Baby. They had creative rebirth and they rode out the 90's by being one of the biggest bands on the planet but all the while making music they wanted to make. They rode that out very well until the financial failure of POP. Was it a creative failure? Who knows. But I think, and feel that is when Bono worried about relevancy. Now, as we know, relevancy is pretty subjective. But I feel that is when Bono might have had that question as to whether or not what they're doing is reaching people, on several levels (artistically, etc).

But anyway, I don't want to turn this thread into a discussion of old U2 vs. new U2.

 

[BVS]

The truth is that they just are not the risk-takers that they used to be. Chalk it up to their age or whatever. But that is cold hard fact.

But this is a different point all together. I would say you are closer to being correct than Peterrrrrrr or anyone else who says they shouldn't care about "relevancy" or "hits". I think the U2 of the 90's could do both. Chalk it up to age, their clout at the time, or the overall musical landscape of the time... It's probably a little bit of all of the above.

I think U2 are still taking risks, they're just much smaller risks and sometimes they can't seem to fully commit.

But I think what most people are really complaining about is that U2 doesn't take the risks that THEY would like U2 to take, because if you think about it, Vertigo was a bit of a risk for U2. They've never ventured into the power chord riff based single, and the last time they went with a playful surface song(Discotheque) it didn't go so well for them. But most people in here won't admit this.

How many out there are taking risks? (and I swear if someone says Radiohead you are automatically dismissed from the discussion for they haven't taken a risk since Kid A) The only ones I can think of currently are Arcade Fire, and personally it's a risk I'm not fond of, I couldn't stand their SNL performances... But I have to admit it's a risk and I commend them for that, but who else do we think are taking these types of risks these days?

 

[david]

I'm glad to see them branch out and record with Danger Mouse. They could have easily fell back on Eno and Lanois (and Lillywhite.)

I don't even care that they take so long to make albums because I just want to hear something they feel is worth it. And to be honest, I can understand Bono wanting to write a song he feels good about and and feels good singing live for a year long tour and possible tours after. I think the album they feel most proud of in the last phase of their career and feel good playing songs from is All That You Can't Leave Behind and that is why it wasn't a surprise that they played at least 5 songs from it for the Rosebowl 360 show.. Because it was a good album.

I feel that they want that again with this new album.

 

[shaun vox]

remember when it was cool to be a u2 fan? U2 Achtung Baby ad - YouTube

 

[popacrobat]

Yeah, but why would a band that is now 50+ years old ever be cool to like again? Unless that was just a "hey remember when" rather than "hey don't you wish it's like this again?" It will never be hip or cool to like U2 like that again.

 

[Mrs. Garrison]

Except that many u2 fans are also the same age as u2. Many more are in their 40's or 30's, and don't really care what is "hip" or "cool", they just want to hear new u2. I guess I was 20 when Achtung Baby came out, and I was crazy mad in love with the band for most of the 90's. I still love PoP, always have and always will. I saw a bit of a shift with ATYCLB as I had turned 30 and most of my college aged friends were into other music, I could have cared less about that.

I guess the horrific events of 911 may have pushed u2 out there a bit, along with the messages on certain songs from ATYCLB and certain performances (2002 Grammies, Super Bowl) that made younger people take notice. I know those concerts after 911 had a different feeling about them, then again, everything in life had a different feeling.

Atomic Bomb had a really good first single, and it flew off of the shelves if I recall correctly. The vertigo tour (and 360 Tour) were still hot tickets, so its easy to say that seeing u2 play live is still a must-do for many people.

NLOTH was certainly a downer for me, though it could have been a lot better with a few changes. That's all old news of course, but I think its too easy to think that people of any age wont fall madly in love with this band again. I don't know if its love or loyalty or remembrance of my youth that keeps me coming back for more....but im still here.