BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
But RELEVANCE is subjective and changes with the times as well...
For instance who would you label relevant post napster, and why?
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
But RELEVANCE is subjective and changes with the times as well...
For instance who would you label relevant post napster, and why?
I think yet again the article was quoted out of context. However lets state facts
1. The US market has been one of U2s weakest markets since the 1980s
2. The album has sold the 2nd most copies world wide since the start of the year
3. U2 are old and not part of the mainstream anymore, Id be shocked if they had another top radio hit it would be unexpected.
U2 should make the music they want to make and not worry about sales. If they are concerned about sales they should retire now.
1. The US market has been one of U2s weakest markets since the 1980s
2. The album has sold the 2nd most copies world wide since the start of the year
3. U2 are old and not part of the mainstream anymore, Id be shocked if they had another top radio hit it would be unexpected.
U2 should make the music they want to make and not worry about sales. If they are concerned about sales they should retire now.
partygirl43
Refugee
THIS.My husband and I keep talking about this...there is something about this tour that is so 'off'. I think you hit the nail on the head.
mcaito
Babyface
- Joined
- May 4, 2005
- Messages
- 29
Complex?
News flash to Bono.
Fans, especially smart, discerning U2 fans, can understand and appreciate "complex" music (and will buy it if they like it). And give the music-buying public at large a little more credit too, for understanding and appreciating "complex" music. The problem here is that Bono is in denial about the greatness of NLOTH, not recognizing the fine line between complex music and dull, uninteresting music. Nobody cares how high-brow and sophisticated you are, just make some good songs and people of ALL demographics and all levels of "understanding" will want to hear it (the Beatles made some complex, conceptual music). Call me simple-minded, call me low brow, but I find the much critically-maligned Rattle & Hum far more listenable than NLOTH.
Sometimes three chords and the truth is enough.
News flash to Bono.
Fans, especially smart, discerning U2 fans, can understand and appreciate "complex" music (and will buy it if they like it). And give the music-buying public at large a little more credit too, for understanding and appreciating "complex" music. The problem here is that Bono is in denial about the greatness of NLOTH, not recognizing the fine line between complex music and dull, uninteresting music. Nobody cares how high-brow and sophisticated you are, just make some good songs and people of ALL demographics and all levels of "understanding" will want to hear it (the Beatles made some complex, conceptual music). Call me simple-minded, call me low brow, but I find the much critically-maligned Rattle & Hum far more listenable than NLOTH.
Sometimes three chords and the truth is enough.
ultraviolet353
War Child
I would say relevance touches upon radio and sales, but is more of a "cultural zeitgeist" thing.
Indie music (think Pitchfork) seems to, IMO, be the most culturally relevant happening in music today. Radiohead heads the list.
Indie music (think Pitchfork) seems to, IMO, be the most culturally relevant happening in music today. Radiohead heads the list.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
What?
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
I was afraid you were going to say this.
And Radiohead was already established pre-napster.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
last unicorn
Blue Crack Addict
Your comments are too complex for us, we're all simple minded.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Oh, yes your extensive 26 posts definately gives you enough insight into who I am.
I was just asking because you seem to be contradicting yourself. You say the music buying public at large can understand "complex" music(which I don't agree with) but then you go on to say give me Rattle and Hum.
What specifically makes NLOTH "dull and uninteresting" but Rattle and Hum not?
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
Not part of the mainstream? If you sell 3.5 million copies you are part of the mainstream.
elevated_u2_fan
Blue Crack Supplier
It's always reassuring that every single one of these threads about new material and the current musical landscape always go exactly the same way - sometimes they are almost identical word for word
gvox
Ghost of Love
Those two paragraphs contradict one another, I'm sorry.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
I've heard Kool-Aid makes you go blind and turn into a sheep. 
And those sophisticated types that accuse others of drinking it are just fucking cool.
And those sophisticated types that accuse others of drinking it are just fucking cool.
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
It's always reassuring that every single one of these threads about new material and the current musical landscape always go exactly the same way - sometimes they are almost identical word for word
right?
elevated_u2_fan
Blue Crack Supplier
right?
I was getting worried there for a bit but then ultraviolet353 brought up Radiohead and then BAM!, mcaito hits us with the Kool-Aid® remark and gentlemen, we have lift off.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
It's always reassuring that every single one of these threads about new material and the current musical landscape always go exactly the same way - sometimes they are almost identical word for word
It's like groundhog day but with blind kool aid drinking sheep.
mikal
Blue Crack Addict
i'd say about two more pages till someone gets really out of control. i love this place!
indra
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 12,689
ozeeko
Refugee
Are there any other veteran artists that obsess over their relevance the way U2 does? Does R.EM. blame the media or the fans or complexity of their music for their "perceived" lack of relevance? Does Martin Gore of Depeche Mode worry about such matters? Or Bob Dylan for that matter? Does Bruce Springsteen make sure he has 3 bonafide hit songs in the chamber before releasing an album? Does Duran Duran talk about wanting to compete with Kings of Leon and The Killers? Or Metallica? Does Metallica ever set out to reclaim their "Biggest Band in the World" title?
I think I know what U2's tragic heroic flaw is (finally!). They don't know how to be "not the biggest". If they can learn to accept not being the biggest every time around, i think they'd be a lot more inspired.
If the rule of the day was progressive rock, extended numbers, trippy psychadelia, i think that's what U2 would be producing. There wouldn't be all this talk of "the importance of the 45" - gimme a break.
(btw, i don't think progressive rock will ever be the rule of the day, that was just hypothetical)
I think I know what U2's tragic heroic flaw is (finally!). They don't know how to be "not the biggest". If they can learn to accept not being the biggest every time around, i think they'd be a lot more inspired.
If the rule of the day was progressive rock, extended numbers, trippy psychadelia, i think that's what U2 would be producing. There wouldn't be all this talk of "the importance of the 45" - gimme a break.
(btw, i don't think progressive rock will ever be the rule of the day, that was just hypothetical)
last unicorn
Blue Crack Addict
All the people you mentioned aren't even asked such a question. For U2, there are other standards, because of who they are and what they have achieved in the past.
And if you think about it: It IS true that a big part of today's music audience isn't interested in music that is too challenging because they are used to hear what's on the radio and that isn't exactly "complex". U2's audience isn't only made up of hardcore fans, but of the masses, and times have changed.
I don't think I take any of this personally because I'm not into radiofriendly pop music, but many others are.
And if you think about it: It IS true that a big part of today's music audience isn't interested in music that is too challenging because they are used to hear what's on the radio and that isn't exactly "complex". U2's audience isn't only made up of hardcore fans, but of the masses, and times have changed.
I don't think I take any of this personally because I'm not into radiofriendly pop music, but many others are.
ozeeko
Refugee
No one should take anything personally when it comes to music. It's like arguing over food for God's sake. Would I yell at you because you prefer Arby's to White Castle?
For those bands i mentioned, they aren't asked these questions because they never raised those questions in the first place! U2 started their own "biggest band in the world" thing! They are the self-proclaimed greatest! Like rock's answer to Muhammad Ali!
One thing i always liked about Bob Dylan is that he didn't want people blowing smoke up his ass all the time. He was being put on a pedestal. He was a Savior. A Prophet. The leader of his generation. You know what he did? He said screw that, he plugged his guitar in, and pissed off his core audience while gaining a new one, but in time everyone would come around to appreciate what he did. If he really bought into that bullshit about him being music's Savior, then instead of Bringing It All Back Home, Highway 61, Blonde on Blonde, John Wesley Harding...we would've got The Times They Are A-Changin' parts 2,3,4,5 and 6.
If U2 said screw this being the biggest of all time all the time responsiblity that we brought on ourselves, that could open up some creative doors.
For those bands i mentioned, they aren't asked these questions because they never raised those questions in the first place! U2 started their own "biggest band in the world" thing! They are the self-proclaimed greatest! Like rock's answer to Muhammad Ali!
One thing i always liked about Bob Dylan is that he didn't want people blowing smoke up his ass all the time. He was being put on a pedestal. He was a Savior. A Prophet. The leader of his generation. You know what he did? He said screw that, he plugged his guitar in, and pissed off his core audience while gaining a new one, but in time everyone would come around to appreciate what he did. If he really bought into that bullshit about him being music's Savior, then instead of Bringing It All Back Home, Highway 61, Blonde on Blonde, John Wesley Harding...we would've got The Times They Are A-Changin' parts 2,3,4,5 and 6.
If U2 said screw this being the biggest of all time all the time responsiblity that we brought on ourselves, that could open up some creative doors.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Not one of these bands has ever had a consistancy like U2. You should ask yourself is there anyone else who has consistantly had hits like U2? They are in a pretty unique position, don't you think? I'm pretty sure it's not easy on the ego when you've been on top for so long and then you all of a sudden deal with a fall in the standings. Every other artist you listed has had significant falls some more than one or never quite the same status as U2.
I think it's easier for REM or Metallica to take this mentality, they've never been in U2's shoes. But I do know what you are saying, even PopMart was small compared to most of their contemporary's falls... U2 have extremely blessed and lucky, therefore it's somewhat of a curse.
I don't think there's any problem with talk of the 45, it's even more pertinant now, hell even Radiohead said for a brief week that they were no longer going to work in album formats, that's it's dead.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
the other problem that U2 has is that they are still relevant, and thus their "legend/myth" has yet to totally take root.
Springsteen, Dylan, even Depeche Mode and REM are essentially done. sure, they still put out great music, Springsteen still blows pretty much everyone else out of the water on stage, but these acts all have had their beginning, middle, and end. now it's all gravy. now, people can look back with their rose colored glasses at Dylan in the 60s, Bruce from 75-85, and REM from 85-95.
U2, as opposed to all these artists, are still going for it, still trying to be thought of by the kids in the same thought bubble as Coldplay and KOL and whoever else.
so, whether this produces good music or bad music is beside the point. they haven't been fixed into history yet. they're still writing their story. all is not said and done yet.
Springsteen, Dylan, even Depeche Mode and REM are essentially done. sure, they still put out great music, Springsteen still blows pretty much everyone else out of the water on stage, but these acts all have had their beginning, middle, and end. now it's all gravy. now, people can look back with their rose colored glasses at Dylan in the 60s, Bruce from 75-85, and REM from 85-95.
U2, as opposed to all these artists, are still going for it, still trying to be thought of by the kids in the same thought bubble as Coldplay and KOL and whoever else.
so, whether this produces good music or bad music is beside the point. they haven't been fixed into history yet. they're still writing their story. all is not said and done yet.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
ozeeko
Refugee
I think if U2 keeps trying to appeal to young kids they're going to go down a dangerous road. Kids today like Emo rock, Lil' Wayne's raping of rap music, Miley Cyrus with her Disney today/slutville white trashland tommorrow, and Lady Gaga's i don't know what to call it pop. There, I named the 4 pop categories. Then you have the RAWK music, the real good stuff. The music with integrity. And the band's in that prestigous category are......
Kings Of Leon? The Killers? COLDPLAY?????
(man, that sucks if this is the case)
On the other hand, i'm not listening to much of the indie music scene, I'm sure there's good stuff out there but i'm just too lazy to find it. Instead i listen to old shit i haven't heard before. Whatever's good now i'm sure i'll get around to hearing eventually.
Back to U2...I repeat: If these are the bands/pop stars that U2 wants to compete with, then all i can say is...WHY BOTHER? Is a kid who's favorite song is "Kiss Me Through The Phone" really going to understand Bono's failed attempts at selfdeprecating humor in CT and SUC? The only ones who would understand that shit unfortunately is the music critics and the longtime fans who actually know a thing or two about Bono...which is even more unfortunate because these songs are being catered to the listening crowd that won't even get the joke!
I'll state it again, U2 need to accept their outstanding triumphs in their outstanding triumphant career, and say "you know what, it doesn't matter if this album doesn't outsell every other, i'm just enjoying the simple act of creating music".
ozeeko
Refugee
Another thing, Depeche Mode and REM are still going strong last time i checked. They can sell out any concert real quick. Bruce is a phenomenon that will never go away. And what was the last hit song he had? Secret Garden?
- Status
Similar threads
