Questions regarding U2: The Definitive Biography

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
iota

iota

War Child
Joined
Aug 19, 2004
Messages
848
Location
the rugged southwest
This book just came out...got it on my kindle. It really painted a bleak landscape on the inner workings of U2 from about 2000 on. It was kind of depressing, really.

Certain things are IMPLIED - I'm not sure they are said outright, but the general picture is this:

1. U2 is a business now and the music is the product. They are not trying anymore to make adventurous art; they are only interested in turning out a lucrative product.

2. The band members themselves kind of feel trapped in their roles and don't really like each other.

3. Larry has been trying to make an exit from the band since HTDAAB, but the acting career hasn't really taken off yet.

4. What once started out as a spiritual quest has been co-opted by the almighty dollar...and those who do business with U2 regard them as shady characters.

Just wondering if I'm off here. Anyone else read the book? Does it sound like reality?

It's just depressing to think that the members of U2 are pretending to have a good time but really miserable....but for the sake of finances have to keep ploughing away.
 
I read that the author didn't talk to any of the band members or anyone close to them for that matter. With that in mind I can't imagine how much of it is accurate, however, you never know what is or isn't true.

In my opinion, it seems that U2 already have more money then they and their kids could possibily spent in a life time so it doesn't make any sense to me that they'd still be working together if they didn't want to.(especially if they supposedly didn't like each other anymore). They don't have to keep releasing records. I believe they do it because they still love it. I'm sure they have moments when they can't stand each other but if they didn't basically get along I really don't think they'd still be at it.

So, I would venture to guess that he's book is full of crap. :D Also, I don't believe they are saints and have never done anything bad or wrong but I still have to take his book with a HUGE grain of salt.
 
iota said:
This book just came out...got it on my kindle. It really painted a bleak landscape on the inner workings of U2 from about 2000 on. It was kind of depressing, really.

Certain things are IMPLIED - I'm not sure they are said outright, but the general picture is this:

1. U2 is a business now and the music is the product. They are not trying anymore to make adventurous art; they are only interested in turning out a lucrative product.

2. The band members themselves kind of feel trapped in their roles and don't really like each other.

3. Larry has been trying to make an exit from the band since HTDAAB, but the acting career hasn't really taken off yet.

4. What once started out as a spiritual quest has been co-opted by the almighty dollar...and those who do business with U2 regard them as shady characters.

Just wondering if I'm off here. Anyone else read the book? Does it sound like reality?

It's just depressing to think that the members of U2 are pretending to have a good time but really miserable....but for the sake of finances have to keep ploughing away.
Click to expand...

None of these things are new to those who have followed Messr Fisher's posts.
 
As depressing as all of that sounds... I like to think that they wouldn't still be doing this if they didn't love it and each other. Like others have said, what more money do they need? I feel like they would have called it quits a while ago if it was about that.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference
 
The truth is none of us really no how much money they have, or how much more they want to make. That level of finance is at a completely different level than most people can even comprehend, and anything we could say about their financial status and priorities would be pure speculation. What they think is "enough" based on their lifestyle and obligations is very different than how most of us think about it.

That said, I'd like to believe they're not in it solely for the money, but it wouldn't surprise me in the least if that was a major motivator.
 
I think you can pretty much take it with a grain of salt.


The owls are not what they seem.
 
Until one of the members themselves come out and say something that confirms some of these things, they are just rumors that seem baseless.

With that said, some things I as a fan have observed that both support and disprove those statements:

1-McGuiness was removed, either voluntarily or involuntarily. He was the 5th member and a change like this if involuntary would create tension within the band. If voluntary, it could give some of them reason to think "maybe it's my time to move on too".

2-Larry just doesn't look happy. He was very disconnected during the Fallon performance and it was as if he was not happy. Is he ever really happy? Hell if I know but he doesn't look happy.

3-during 360, they all looked like they were having a lot of fun together.

4-I think every band/artist is a corporation trying to make money and that's not a bad thing, thats them trying to make a living. However, if they put the dollar ahead of the music, wouldn't we see "Where the Streets have no name" in a car commercial? Or "I still haven't found what I'm looking for" in an attack ad for politicians or "Even Better than the Real thing" for the next iphone?

5- What is "adventurous art"?What is deemed as "adventurous" is subjective and I have been happy with their music post 2000. I always hear that ATYCLB was U2 playing it safe because they got scared....ok then, if playing it safe means Beautiful Day, Walk on and Elevation....Sign me up. I wonder why more artists dont "play it safe"? perhaps they don't want hit music?

At the end of the day, I'm just a fan who listens to their music and knows nothing about their inner workings. I just want them to keep making music....good music.




Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference
 
^^^^^^

:up:

I think an author who's obviously on the outside can cherry pick stories he's heard as well. I'm sure the band has been through dark times most likely in the last year or two while making a very difficult album, but that's just part of being in a band. Lots of peaks and valleys.


The owls are not what they seem.
 
Nick66 said:
None of these things are new to those who have followed Messr Fisher's posts.
Click to expand...

Exactly. My very first thought on the OP's summary: so this book was written by Fisher?

My second thought, is, if they really do feel unhappy in the band, at least Bono seems to make extraordinary efforts NOT to be unhappy in the band. I don't know that I've ever seen a person praise others the way he does.
 
CosmoKramer said:
Until one of the members themselves come out and say something that confirms some of these things, they are just rumors that seem baseless.

With that said, some things I as a fan have observed that both support and disprove those statements:

1-McGuiness was removed, either voluntarily or involuntarily. He was the 5th member and a change like this if involuntary would create tension within the band. If voluntary, it could give some of them reason to think "maybe it's my time to move on too".

2-Larry just doesn't look happy. He was very disconnected during the Fallon performance and it was as if he was not happy. Is he ever really happy? Hell if I know but he doesn't look happy.

3-during 360, they all looked like they were having a lot of fun together.

4-I think every band/artist is a corporation trying to make money and that's not a bad thing, thats them trying to make a living. However, if they put the dollar ahead of the music, wouldn't we see "Where the Streets have no name" in a car commercial? Or "I still haven't found what I'm looking for" in an attack ad for politicians or "Even Better than the Real thing" for the next iphone?

5- What is "adventurous art"?What is deemed as "adventurous" is subjective and I have been happy with their music post 2000. I always hear that ATYCLB was U2 playing it safe because they got scared....ok then, if playing it safe means Beautiful Day, Walk on and Elevation....Sign me up. I wonder why more artists dont "play it safe"? perhaps they don't want hit music?

At the end of the day, I'm just a fan who listens to their music and knows nothing about their inner workings. I just want them to keep making music....good music.
Click to expand...

Well said.
 
CosmoKramer said:
2-Larry just doesn't look happy. He was very disconnected during the Fallon performance and it was as if he was not happy. Is he ever really happy? Hell if I know but he doesn't look happy.
Click to expand...

The Larry isn't happy thing appears to be a bit of an act. He looked pretty happy while they were announcing Songs of Innocence on stage at Apple.

That said, we've heard anecdotally that the decision to pull the pin on an early/mid year release was made just before the Fallon performance, so I have always put Larry's disinterest in that show down to that - he was pissed that they weren't finally releasing, and he may have felt the performance itself was totally pointless. The kind of thing just B+E do if there's nothing really 'U2' to promote.

I imagine if Larry didn't believe in the project, he wouldn't have appeared shirtless on the album cover hugging his shirtless son. The only reason I emphasise the shirtless thing is that we have all seen the wild homophobic interpretations, or deliberate misinterpretations of the cover art, art they had to have known it would happen. Larry wouldn't have opened himself or his son up to that if it wasn't a product he was totally behind.
 
jeevey said:
Exactly. My very first thought on the OP's summary: so this book was written by Fisher?
Click to expand...

Indeed, apparently Messr Fisher met with this guy (from Fisher's post @U2):

So, having had the pleasure of speaking to John Jobling for an hour or so four years ago, when he was already a year or so into researching his U2 book, allow me to sketch in a wisp of such background as I can dimly recall between sips of Complan and loving caresses of my colostomy bag.

John (whom I seem to recall styling himself Jon at that point) had spoken to a good many people who had worked with U2 - in the US, the UK and Ireland - but had not spoken to any member of the band, or to Magoo, or to any close friends of the band (either first-rank pals such as Guggi and Gavin or even Johnny/Jonny-come-lately friends such as Simon Carmody, known in Dublin as Simon le Bono because of his slavish devotion to Mr van der Hewson). Indeed, John, who is based in the UK (Newcastle, as I vaguely recall), had not even been to Dublin at that point.

I gave him the benefit of such piddly views and experience of the band that I have, and advised him to acquaint himself with Dublin before writing the book, to get a handle on the psychogeography of the place and perhaps thereby gain an understanding of, for example, the (very large) differences between the northside and the southside, or between Rosemount Avenue, Cedarwood Road and Yellow Walls Road.

He hadn't, at that stage, spoken to Eamon Dunphy either. Many obvious lacunae in his research remained to be filled. But those to whom he had already spoken had yielded some rich veins of information, narrow but gleaming seams that made certain events and phases of the band's existence more comprehensible. He had developed what seemed to me a pretty good understanding of Bono (especially given that by then he had spoken to nobody particularly close to him).

The impression of John that I formed was entirely positive - he was familiar with all of the back catalogue, he had sifted through the various books and the cuttings pile, and he was coming to the subject with an open mind. He seemed to me to be a highly diligent researcher and one who could reliably sift the harvest. Even at that stage he had a good deal of information of the sort that would sell any biography. I hope those nuggets make it into print, as they would give people a richer understanding of the key personalities.

I was struck that John had spoken to people who, through working with the band, were able to sum up their personalities in a phrase or two. For example, a US studio engineer's laconically hostile assessment of Bono stunned me with its accuracy and economy, and I've often thought of it since. As it is John's original research it would be improper to repeat it here, tempted though I am to do so. (If John happens to read this, perhaps he could be persuaded to share it as a taster... The quote begins: "Bono's a snake...") But if the book is anything like as entertaining as it promised to be from vignettes such as that, it will be required reading.
Click to expand...
 
Yeah, the book is very positive about U2 until after Popmart. Then it almost seems to imply that they made some kind of Faustian bargain with the devil (i.e. McGuinness) from then on.
 
Well said CosmoKramer, I also agree with you


Don't believe the devil
I don't believe his book
But the truth is not the same
Without the lies he made up

Don't believe in excess
Success is to give
Don't believe in riches
But you should see where I live.
 
:lol:

Really though. When the new album came out, I really thought there was a good chance that a poster from another forum wouldn't be mentioned here again. Guess I was wrong.


The owls are not what they seem.
 
There is a poster at Mac Rumors that I've been dying to tell you about.

He posted asking if his iPhone was bent. He couldn't tell by looking at it so he posted pictures asking everyone to give him their analysis. Hilarious stuff.


The owls are not what they seem.
 
mikal said:
There is a poster at Mac Rumors that I've been dying to tell you about.

He posted asking if his iPhone was bent. He couldn't tell by looking at it so he posted pictures asking everyone to give him their analysis. Hilarious stuff.


The owls are not what they seem.
Click to expand...


If I ever see that guy at an Apple event I'm going to punch him squarely in the face, no warning.


Sent from my ass crack
 
CosmoKramer said:
Until one of the members themselves come out and say something that confirms some of these things, they are just rumors that seem baseless.

With that said, some things I as a fan have observed that both support and disprove those statements:

1-McGuiness was removed, either voluntarily or involuntarily. He was the 5th member and a change like this if involuntary would create tension within the band. If voluntary, it could give some of them reason to think "maybe it's my time to move on too".

2-Larry just doesn't look happy. He was very disconnected during the Fallon performance and it was as if he was not happy. Is he ever really happy? Hell if I know but he doesn't look happy.

3-during 360, they all looked like they were having a lot of fun together.

4-I think every band/artist is a corporation trying to make money and that's not a bad thing, thats them trying to make a living. However, if they put the dollar ahead of the music, wouldn't we see "Where the Streets have no name" in a car commercial? Or "I still haven't found what I'm looking for" in an attack ad for politicians or "Even Better than the Real thing" for the next iphone?

5- What is "adventurous art"?What is deemed as "adventurous" is subjective and I have been happy with their music post 2000. I always hear that ATYCLB was U2 playing it safe because they got scared....ok then, if playing it safe means Beautiful Day, Walk on and Elevation....Sign me up. I wonder why more artists dont "play it safe"? perhaps they don't want hit music?

At the end of the day, I'm just a fan who listens to their music and knows nothing about their inner workings. I just want them to keep making music....good music.




Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference
Click to expand...

Pretty much this yeah.
 
dan_smee said:
The Larry isn't happy thing appears to be a bit of an act. He looked pretty happy while they were announcing Songs of Innocence on stage at Apple.

That said, we've heard anecdotally that the decision to pull the pin on an early/mid year release was made just before the Fallon performance, so I have always put Larry's disinterest in that show down to that - he was pissed that they weren't finally releasing, and he may have felt the performance itself was totally pointless. The kind of thing just B+E do if there's nothing really 'U2' to promote.

I imagine if Larry didn't believe in the project, he wouldn't have appeared shirtless on the album cover hugging his shirtless son. The only reason I emphasise the shirtless thing is that we have all seen the wild homophobic interpretations, or deliberate misinterpretations of the cover art, art they had to have known it would happen. Larry wouldn't have opened himself or his son up to that if it wasn't a product he was totally behind.
Click to expand...

:up:
 
I just read the article in the Guardian and I think it dispels a lot of these "thoughts" about them hating each other and Larry wanting to leave the band.

I get the "what else are they going to say" thought process but my answer to that is....nothing. Why do an interview or if they do an interview, then don't talk about how you care for one another and what their friendship means. Larry actually admitted NLOTH was a miserable time for him and he wasn't happy. To me, he actually came off as....not a miserable person but just serious (big difference).

It's an article and they could be putting on a show but this article gave me the impression that they like eachother, they like music and they want to put out the best music that they can make.




Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference
 
CosmoKramer said:
I just read the article in the Guardian and I think it dispels a lot of these "thoughts" about them hating each other and Larry wanting to leave the band.

I get the "what else are they going to say" thought process but my answer to that is....nothing. Why do an interview or if they do an interview, then don't talk about how you care for one another and what their friendship means. Larry actually admitted NLOTH was a miserable time for him and he wasn't happy. To me, he actually came off as....not a miserable person but just serious (big difference).

It's an article and they could be putting on a show but this article gave me the impression that they like eachother, they like music and they want to put out the best music that they can make.




Sent from my iPad using U2 Interference
Click to expand...


Is there a link to the article? I am curious to read also.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

dan_smee
I listened to No Line on the Horizon right through tonight for the first time in about 10 years…
2 3
Replies
83
Views
2K
lazarus
lazarus
L
Until the End of the World (U2:UV)
Replies
1
Views
112
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
W
A Boy Falls From the Sky is some U2's best work
Replies
3
Views
2K
zoocarolina
Z
K
U2 Show Logistics Question/Theories
Replies
7
Views
761
lazarus
lazarus
cobl04
Kiss the Future documentary
Replies
11
Views
3K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom