Bono: 'U2 album was too challenging'
- Thread starter DevilsShoes
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
Yes, I'm also surprised that this fact is often overlooked when the album is considered a commercial failure. Factor in a huge leak of the album weeks before its release--on top of the fact that folks illegally download even when the album is properly released on time; the iTunes buy-a-song effect; the fact that iTunes split its reporting of the album's rank by album version (thus keeping it from reaching the higher spot it really attained).....and so on, and so on.
A much more global interpretation of an album's success is required these days. I'd look at all of the following together: 1) album sales, 2) individual song sales, 3) ringtone/etc. sales during album's release, 4) increase in u2.com merchandise sales during album's release, 5) increase in popularity/transfers of U2 material on torrent sites during an album's release, 6) hell, bumps in one.org and Product(RED) hits & sales during an album's release. Look at all those things during a given timeframe before and after a new album's release and you'll see the cultural impact & success of the band and any new material. Look simply at album sales & you'll miss the boat.
AliEnvy
Refugee
To me Boots doesn't seem to 'fit' on NLOTH because it's an Elevation/Vertigo do-over that finally hit the mark. Third time's the charm. A fun pop song that rocks and full of familiar U2 themes and metaphors. Nicely done, IMO.
Not to mention the fifty gazillion U2360 tickets sold.
AliEnvy
Refugee
Oh and perhaps see bumps in all those categories, plus things like twitter feeds and facebook hits after the free webcast.
I say this in every thread when she makes open ended statements like that, which can be interpreted in so many ways. I know she is very passionate about her love for the band, but sometimes her comments come across offensive because she throws them out like they are fact or the 'be all end all'.
I've told her before she needs to stop being a spokesperson for the band and accept that nobody is any less of a fan for disliking stuff off the NLOTH or 360 tour - just as she dislikes Pop and Zooropa.
Nothing against ya last unicorn, just wish you'd carefully consider your comments before ripping into some of us that's all. I know your very passionate about the band.
SethVincent
Refugee
your post until this ^^SethVincent
Refugee
ZOOTVTOURist
Refugee
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 1,700
This is one of the best postings, I've read here for ages – fans like you are the reason, why it still makes sense for me to stay in this forum. Thank you
ZOOTVTOURist
Refugee
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 1,700
... thought about the same, when reading unicorn's statement ...
I agree with Rich79, NLOTH is a confusing album - it doesn't mean it's bad, it just I guess can be hard to get into or feel captivated, understand for some of us. I certainly felt that way the first time I heard it. I felt the first 4 songs of the album were brilliant, the middle to me was kind of a 'WTF is going on' moment and the end was much better but incomplete. Which come to think of it is the main issue; it felt incomplete. The songs that were stuffed into the album as chart pleasers threw the theme a bit off track...Which is why I am mostly confused when I listen to this album, but it still is a great album!
cjboog
Refugee
I totally understand Bono here.
For the casual music listener, there's just nothing to catch their attention like "Vertigo" and "Beautiful Day" on NLOTH. GOYB is a good song in itself - bad choice for a single. Crazy Tonight is also a good song, but it doesn't have that essential element that the other big hit singles have.
To those who have said they're just not as good as they used to be, I disagree.
"Breathe," "Magnificent," and "Moment of Surrender" are three of the best songs U2 has ever written and for me rank right up with all their classics. And this tour is blowing people's socks off.
I personally am excited for both the Rubin record and SOA. I agree with Bono when he said that if you love your music, you want to communicate it to an audience. It's about a bigger experience. It's not just something you make for your own little artistic pleasure. That clip where he said if you want to make art just for yourself, you can go become a potter. Translation: There's nothing wrong with trying to get a hit single that people can identify with. Most of U2's greatest songs were hit singles.
UK Singles Chart
#10 New Year's Day
#3 Pride
#4 With Or Without You
#6 I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For
#4 Where The Streets Have No Name
#4 All I Want Is You
#1 The Fly
#7 One
#1 Beautiful Day
#2 City of Blinding Lights
ALL HITS.
I'm not saying they should stop making experimental songs like "Fez" (which is an amazing song), but they shouldn't stop making songs like those listed above just because some people think having a hit song is selling out and all music should be pottery.
For the casual music listener, there's just nothing to catch their attention like "Vertigo" and "Beautiful Day" on NLOTH. GOYB is a good song in itself - bad choice for a single. Crazy Tonight is also a good song, but it doesn't have that essential element that the other big hit singles have.
To those who have said they're just not as good as they used to be, I disagree.
"Breathe," "Magnificent," and "Moment of Surrender" are three of the best songs U2 has ever written and for me rank right up with all their classics. And this tour is blowing people's socks off.
I personally am excited for both the Rubin record and SOA. I agree with Bono when he said that if you love your music, you want to communicate it to an audience. It's about a bigger experience. It's not just something you make for your own little artistic pleasure. That clip where he said if you want to make art just for yourself, you can go become a potter. Translation: There's nothing wrong with trying to get a hit single that people can identify with. Most of U2's greatest songs were hit singles.
UK Singles Chart
#10 New Year's Day
#3 Pride
#4 With Or Without You
#6 I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For
#4 Where The Streets Have No Name
#4 All I Want Is You
#1 The Fly
#7 One
#1 Beautiful Day
#2 City of Blinding Lights
ALL HITS.
I'm not saying they should stop making experimental songs like "Fez" (which is an amazing song), but they shouldn't stop making songs like those listed above just because some people think having a hit song is selling out and all music should be pottery.
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
i really have nothing to add either than i think there is a huge overreaction to this article.
I also agree about Breathe, Magnificent and MOS. It's just even as a die hard U2 fan I didn't 'get' the need for songs like GOYB, Crazy, SUC being in there, which are all great songs by the way. They felt out of place, and like they would fit better on HTDAAB. It's this element that really confuses me about U2's strategy with NLOTH as an album. And so, if it confuses some of us who are really die hard about U2's work, what's it going to do to the casual listener? 
Popmartijn
Blue Crack Supplier
i really have nothing to add either than i think there is a huge overreaction to this article.
And those 5 lines (or so) the original poster quoted are just a hack job from some person with Internet access. The full article can be found here:
U2 and Bono adapt to changing times - Yahoo! News
And that full article also includes lines like:
indra
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 12,689
I simply think that the music industry has changed since the glorious days of the '80s (man, I loved music so much back in the '80s) and I think U2's not willing to change that much to be able to get the love from the radio, since it's perhaps too risky. They could lose a lot of their fanbase that way.
Instead, it feels like they're landing somewhere in between and they don't really know what to do here. They have a large fanbase that seems to be perfectly fine if they continue doing what they're doing. But at the same time they want to be out on the radio and the radio doesn't want Joshua Tree-esque music anymore like it did before. That's where we end up with songs like GOYB, and although I like GOYB a lot more now than back in February it still feels very unnatural as a song. It attempts to be radio-friendly while still pleasing their fanbase and based on most opinions around here and other places it fails in both.
It's a great album, but I'm starting to understand all the Swedish reviews I read that all gave it 3/5 and calling it a "mixed bag". I think it's better than 3/5, but it is a mixed bag. When you're trying to make a couple of radio-friendly pop songs and then a couple of songs that are more experimental and very different from the others it's hard to please anyone completely. It seems like they truly want to be experimental and release songs like Fez-Being Born for example but their instincts to get noticed on the radio and in media keeps them from doing an album that completely relies on such songs, since they know that it will probably get out there unnoticed with only those who already liked U2 taking note of it. I truly hope U2 releases Songs of Ascent without caring one bit how it's recieved by the media and the radio, only caring about what they wanted with the album and what their fans may enjoy. Sort of like Zooropa, just not the same music style.
I also think U2 may have lost that little extra required to make a true classic. Memorable songs they seem to handle (Magnificent for example), but I don't think they'll make classics like ISHFWILF or Pride ever again. Unfortunalety.
Instead, it feels like they're landing somewhere in between and they don't really know what to do here. They have a large fanbase that seems to be perfectly fine if they continue doing what they're doing. But at the same time they want to be out on the radio and the radio doesn't want Joshua Tree-esque music anymore like it did before. That's where we end up with songs like GOYB, and although I like GOYB a lot more now than back in February it still feels very unnatural as a song. It attempts to be radio-friendly while still pleasing their fanbase and based on most opinions around here and other places it fails in both.
It's a great album, but I'm starting to understand all the Swedish reviews I read that all gave it 3/5 and calling it a "mixed bag". I think it's better than 3/5, but it is a mixed bag. When you're trying to make a couple of radio-friendly pop songs and then a couple of songs that are more experimental and very different from the others it's hard to please anyone completely. It seems like they truly want to be experimental and release songs like Fez-Being Born for example but their instincts to get noticed on the radio and in media keeps them from doing an album that completely relies on such songs, since they know that it will probably get out there unnoticed with only those who already liked U2 taking note of it. I truly hope U2 releases Songs of Ascent without caring one bit how it's recieved by the media and the radio, only caring about what they wanted with the album and what their fans may enjoy. Sort of like Zooropa, just not the same music style.
I also think U2 may have lost that little extra required to make a true classic. Memorable songs they seem to handle (Magnificent for example), but I don't think they'll make classics like ISHFWILF or Pride ever again. Unfortunalety.
coolian2
Blue Crack Supplier
well....that's actually much less worrying.
Salome
you are what you is
Bono is trying to say that all of you just don't get it and that they don't need you
kiss the future
kiss the future
Slapnutz
Refugee
It's not catchy enough for the pop kids and not experimental enough for those who want to be challenged. Tough shit.
powerhour24
ONE love, blood, life
They've always doubted themselves, they need to just stick to their guns and create, you have a big enough permanent audience to sell concert tickets to no matter what kind of music you release, now trust your creativity.
Someone really needs to get into U2's inner circle and make them understand, screw the mainstream, there's been so much evidence of creative vitality coming from you this decade, unfortunately you doubt that after Pop, that it's streamlined enough to go over well, and it's mostly been watered down or left on the cutting room floor.
I'm an apologist and I've greatly enjoyed most of their output in this decade, but I've also heard everyone say how irrelevant they are and that clearly worries them, but you know what would make you relevant? Trusting those instincts, releasing NLOTH as the world-inspired experiment you conceived of, the Bomb as the garage-rock U2 you conceived of, and SOA as the meditative companion album you've talked about. Just stick with your ideas, and release them, let the creativity promote itself, maybe you'll win over some snobby young people with a taste for new music, even if they hate the mainstream.
Don't over-produce, don't rework tracklistings to include conceived of hits, and don't worry about the sales numbers or news reports, guess what, you have the biggest album worldwide of the year, face it, people are stealing music, but they can't steal a concert experience, and you're embarking on the biggest, most successful tour in history. Your fans love you, the haters can be proven wrong if you trust your instincts, they just continue shouting when you try and pander to the pop crowd. Who cares what a 12 year old girl is listening to on her iPod this week, she won't remember your name tomorrow.
Someone really needs to get into U2's inner circle and make them understand, screw the mainstream, there's been so much evidence of creative vitality coming from you this decade, unfortunately you doubt that after Pop, that it's streamlined enough to go over well, and it's mostly been watered down or left on the cutting room floor.
I'm an apologist and I've greatly enjoyed most of their output in this decade, but I've also heard everyone say how irrelevant they are and that clearly worries them, but you know what would make you relevant? Trusting those instincts, releasing NLOTH as the world-inspired experiment you conceived of, the Bomb as the garage-rock U2 you conceived of, and SOA as the meditative companion album you've talked about. Just stick with your ideas, and release them, let the creativity promote itself, maybe you'll win over some snobby young people with a taste for new music, even if they hate the mainstream.
Don't over-produce, don't rework tracklistings to include conceived of hits, and don't worry about the sales numbers or news reports, guess what, you have the biggest album worldwide of the year, face it, people are stealing music, but they can't steal a concert experience, and you're embarking on the biggest, most successful tour in history. Your fans love you, the haters can be proven wrong if you trust your instincts, they just continue shouting when you try and pander to the pop crowd. Who cares what a 12 year old girl is listening to on her iPod this week, she won't remember your name tomorrow.
I think JoRu made a good post, above, and has outlined the dilemma U2 face. I think their status right now is exactly like it was in 1997 -- almost uncannily so. Studio album is released early in the year after a looooong wait, so the stakes are high. The album is a compromised "mixed-bag" of relatively experimental tracks and standard U2-anthems. The songs feel somewhat labored and overproduced, perhaps because they spent too long recording or because too many cooks spoiled the broth. The first single turned off some and was met with a collective yawn by the pop mainstream, and the strong but underwhelming album sales (by U2 standards) are set against an international stadium tour with a more-urgent-need-than-usual to put asses in seats.
All of the above could describe 1997 or 2009.
Now, I have a solution for U2. The most non-commercially-considered album they've made yet, I think, is Zooropa. It sold well during the ZooTV tour even though it failed to produce any big radio hits, largely because U2's star and profile were BIG at the time, and the alternative rock boom made Zooropa accessible to many younger fans (an advantage not enjoyed today when U2 are old and the younger fans listen to Miley Cyrus). Still, the left-of-centre Zooropa did very well on its own terms, and nobody complained about its underwhelming commerciality.
Yet, many complained about the underwhelming commerciality of both Pop and NLOTH. Why the big difference in perception?
The difference is down to the fact that Zooropa was perceived as an offshoot of the Achtung Baby / ZooTV era. It didn't follow years of waiting, and it wasn't hyped at all when it came out.
So, here's what I think they should do from now on: Instead of releasing another compromised mixed-bag album (like NLOTH, which I think is easily their weakest record since October), they should release two albums almost at the same time. First the big one, which is more accessible to the casual music fan, and then the more self-indulgent / experimental one, just a few months later. The first one to satisfy their seemingly obsessive need to be "big", and the second to satisfy their artier impulses (which aren't that arty -- even at their most experimental, U2 are still pretty mainstream).
I'm not saying the second album should be Russian polkas in 6/8 time produced by Eno with a Vietnamese monk chanting over it; it could potentially still be quite a commercially successful work (like Zooropa), but it can be more of a piece, and it can come after the big one that has the radio hits, etc. If it sells, great, and if it flops, who cares?
My idea would be unnecessary if they would put out an album every year or two, but the releases are so infrequent now that I don't think the mixed-big approach of NLOTH is going to serve them well (or satisfy them) in the years to come, especially with the sound-byte / 3 seconds' attention span audience they're continuously trying to win over.
All of the above could describe 1997 or 2009.
Now, I have a solution for U2. The most non-commercially-considered album they've made yet, I think, is Zooropa. It sold well during the ZooTV tour even though it failed to produce any big radio hits, largely because U2's star and profile were BIG at the time, and the alternative rock boom made Zooropa accessible to many younger fans (an advantage not enjoyed today when U2 are old and the younger fans listen to Miley Cyrus). Still, the left-of-centre Zooropa did very well on its own terms, and nobody complained about its underwhelming commerciality.
Yet, many complained about the underwhelming commerciality of both Pop and NLOTH. Why the big difference in perception?
The difference is down to the fact that Zooropa was perceived as an offshoot of the Achtung Baby / ZooTV era. It didn't follow years of waiting, and it wasn't hyped at all when it came out.
So, here's what I think they should do from now on: Instead of releasing another compromised mixed-bag album (like NLOTH, which I think is easily their weakest record since October), they should release two albums almost at the same time. First the big one, which is more accessible to the casual music fan, and then the more self-indulgent / experimental one, just a few months later. The first one to satisfy their seemingly obsessive need to be "big", and the second to satisfy their artier impulses (which aren't that arty -- even at their most experimental, U2 are still pretty mainstream).
I'm not saying the second album should be Russian polkas in 6/8 time produced by Eno with a Vietnamese monk chanting over it; it could potentially still be quite a commercially successful work (like Zooropa), but it can be more of a piece, and it can come after the big one that has the radio hits, etc. If it sells, great, and if it flops, who cares?
My idea would be unnecessary if they would put out an album every year or two, but the releases are so infrequent now that I don't think the mixed-big approach of NLOTH is going to serve them well (or satisfy them) in the years to come, especially with the sound-byte / 3 seconds' attention span audience they're continuously trying to win over.
Saracene
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Except that now they're nearing their 50s instead of 40s, which I think makes their wish to get back into the mainstream near-impossible. Thing is, can they really be happy with retreating to the edges of the mainstream?
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
i think this is an astute post, but for two things:
1. the 360 tour is considered a smashing success, setting box office and attendance records and selling out almost everywhere; the reviews have been stellar. by contrast, what's most remembered about Popmart is that no one went to it, and the half empty stadiums particularly on the second N.A. leg. that was a dismal time to be a U2 fan. that has not and will not happen this time.
2. despite your personal feelings, NLOTH, while not a commercial smash, is certainly a stronger album than Pop -- "stronger" in the sense of critical acclaim and the general satisfaction of long-time U2 fans with the album.
i certainly agree that GOYB = Discotheque, but GOYB didn't have an insane video nor do they look like they're trying to play dress-up with a culture that they dont really understand, like they did with Pop. nor are they jumping on the bandwagon of trendy sounds, like they did with Pop.
what i think U2 needs to do, and it's similar to what you think, though streamlined, is release the meditative SOA but spend time making sure that the rumored Every Breaking Wave is a world beating, classic, montage-at-the-Olympics U2 anthem for All Time. and then let the rest of the album simmer. add EBW and 1-2 other tracks from SOA to keep the 360 Tour thematically consistent with the NLOTH stuff.
in 2011 release the poppier stuff and then start to come to terms with the fact that much of pop chart success is, as youtoo says, about sex. and, yes, they're too old and too happy to be successful in that vein. however, what i'd add to the "sex" aspect that it's about:
1. on a basic level, wanting to have sex with the singer of the song -- Bono was quite attractive at 32 (look at him smolder in the "One" video), not so much at 50.
2. the subject of sex and relationships, something which all the members of U2 seem to be quite successful at, and good on them, but we're not going to get the blood and guts of a divorce like we did in 1991.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
A lot of misconceptions in this post. Although many of us would like less time between album releases, it's not that uncommon, even younger bands are waiting longer lengths between releases.
Zooropa was not really considered an offshoot by anyone outside the die hard community, it was just considered another album. It was hyped quite a bit and Numb and Lemon did well on video outlets but not on radio. So I'm not sure where your perceptions of Zooropa are coming from...
But the biggest misconception is that 360 is a huge success compared to PopMart. The other big misconception is that by all accounts, Pop and PopMart should have been HUGE. MTV was still big cheerleaders they had jumped on early with the next biggest thing: electronica, and they were coming off a hugely successful time in their lives. Everything was building this up to be the next coming.
This time around they have very little to no markets for their songs to play. MTV is dead, radio gets worse every year, and now we have the internet allowing anyone to steal music. So almost nothing was on their side this time around.
not to mention it did win them a grammy, which some consider to be a sign of success. (two if you count the zoo tv concert, actually.)
plus, i look at it this way. i was 10 when zooropa came out. there was no internet back then, at least not for most people. yet i somehow new the album was out. i remember buying it on cassette with my birthday money. sure, it didn't sell nearly as much as achtung baby and ten year old me knowing the album existed doesn't mean anything really, but i thought it was worth sharing.
elevated_u2_fan
Blue Crack Supplier
agreed and they can't even take more unorthodox marketing routes like the younger acts do for fear of being branded as sell-outs by their jaded fanbase.
Irvine511, your points are all reasonable:
Yes, it is quite a difference, you're right.
Again, you're right. However, I was thinking only of the album's sales and commercial immediacy. It's worth noting that the Pop album also got great reviews at the moment of its release -- the backlash didn't start setting in until the tour started. If we were to compare the contemporary reviews of Pop to NLOTH, I'm not sure that the latter's are any better than the former's.
I enjoyed this comment, because you perfectly summarized what turned off a lot of people to the whole Pop campaign!
Right. Unless Adam starts writing the lyrics!
Yes, it is quite a difference, you're right.
Again, you're right. However, I was thinking only of the album's sales and commercial immediacy. It's worth noting that the Pop album also got great reviews at the moment of its release -- the backlash didn't start setting in until the tour started. If we were to compare the contemporary reviews of Pop to NLOTH, I'm not sure that the latter's are any better than the former's.
I enjoyed this comment, because you perfectly summarized what turned off a lot of people to the whole Pop campaign!
Right. Unless Adam starts writing the lyrics!
- Status
Similar threads
