Bono: 'U2 album was too challenging'

[BVS]

I think you know what i mean. I meant they "write" music for themselves.

If that wasn't true, then Dylan would've never written Like A Rolling Stone, as that was considered heresy among the folk crowd, among his fanbase.

It may have been considered heresy by the folk crowd but other crowds were going to like it, he knew this... He wouldn't have written a song that was despised by his audience if he didn't think he would win a new audience with it, Dylan was actually a lot more calculating then most people think. His very elusive interviews are the ones that built his mystery, but every once in awhile he would let his guard down and actually speak a very uncomfortable truth where you realized there was more calculation going on then he might try to lead on. And I think this is true of ALL artists. I think there is a big difference in knowing the audience and catering to them. You can know your audience and still "write for yourself", but I think there are very very few successful artist that don't have their audience somewhere in their minds, it's just not something most would admit.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Who knows. Songs of Ascent could be the one that brings them back, I am sure NLOTH would've at least given them a little tug.

 

[coolian2]

u2 are outside the mainstream and never coming back....yet they're filling stadiums with ease.

hmm.

 

[BVS]

The problem with this record is in a very calculated way they went for this on the 'middle Britney Spears 3' and it failed miserably. These songs suc (pun intended), save the last minute of Boots.

This is such a LAZY analogy, because it doesn't work at all... Britney Spears? Seriously, now you can tell you read Pitchfork...

I like Boots, I think it offers a lot more than most people want to find in it, in that way I think it is complex. I think Crazy is a really great 60's style pop song.

But I agree with you about SUC.

But can we drop the lazy analogies, the nonsense re-write comments, and acting like this is new for U2 to want hits? Let's put some intelligent thought into our conversations...

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I am sure NLOTH would've at least given them a little tug.

Well that’s the thing. They would have had to get past Boots/Magnificent/Crazy Tonight first. And I’d say those are pretty strong defenses against what was once a large % of their fanbase.

 

[ozeeko]

I think there is a big difference in knowing the audience and catering to them. You can know your audience and still "write for yourself", QUOTE]

That's the difference i'm trying to explain bro.

Dylan knew he had a hit in his hands with Rolling Stone, but he knew it was his version of what a hit song was and could be. It was completely original. It was Dylan's stamp on the pop genre. That's what U2 were great at their whole career, putting their stamp on a genre. It doesn't feel like they do that anymore when they write "hits". It feels more like them trying to balance too many things, trying to appease too many fans. They don't wanna throw off or challenge the new or potential fans, and they don't wanna totally alienate their old audience. In my opinion, too much selfconsciousness going on, when all they really need to do is very simple actually...just write a damn song and release it without thinking too much! If you think it's good, then it's probably really good, who cares what the fans might think. If U2 doesn't realize at this point how open minded their fanbase is and how much they long for their experimentation, then i don't think they ever will. They'll just keep on travelling aimlessly down teenpop row....

 

[KhanadaRhodes]

u2 are outside the mainstream and never coming back....yet they're filling stadiums with ease.

hmm.

 

[mikal]

if U2 isn't featured on The Hills or The City, i think they should retire.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

I want to hear Miley Cyrus do a cover of "Elvis Presley and America", if she doesn't, then U2 are officially has-beens.

 

[mikal]

i heard she wanted to meet Radiohead. why didn't she want to meet U2?

i hope Bono's ok.

 

[Vlad n U 2]

Thom didn't want to talk to Miley anyway.

 

[mikal]

i wish U2 was more like Radiohead. they stand up to rockstars.

wait.....

 

[Irvine511]

i just don't think the 00's is "dumbed down." and i really don't think there's all that much "classic" about it, and i think Bono's lyrics are in some ways better than they were certainly pre-RAH. though ATYCLB was dubbed a return to form, i can't figure out what other album it's supposed to sound like. it's them as songwriters, first and foremost, and we could argue that's not their strong suit, but that was the challenge they laid out for themselves with that album.

i think the strongest anti-00's U2 argument to be made is that Bomb is treading water. and the band themselves seemed to somewhat agree -- they wanted to make a loud guitar album, and that they did. i find Bomb to be a bit too close to Bon Jovi, but it's thrilling in the way that i find CT thrilling. there's an adrenaline and a feel-good vibe to it, and there's nothing wrong with that! there's something wrong, in my opinion, to wanting all music to be dull and dour and "challenging" and wishing it were Kid A or Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain.

my musical tastes are defined more by what i like than by what i dislike. i see nothing to be gained by standing up against certain types of music. (there are certain messages in some music that i find objectionable, but that's a whole other discussion). it seems very adolescent to me to locate a notion of authenticity by walking through a record store and proclaiming this crap and that crap.

i like Kid A. it's an album that i did, indeed, find challenging. i remember being in Europe at the time and walking around old cities in the rain and listening to it, along with ATYCLB. i find both albums of equal worth, but i won't ever forget Nick Hornby's review of it in The New Yorker:

It is only fair to say that Radiohead's new album, "Kid A," is nowhere near as teeth-grindingly tedious as "Metal Machine Music." It has its attractive and compelling moments-every so often something gorgeous floats past-and those Radiohead fans who are hellbent on loving it will not be reduced to convincing themselves that they can hear future Ricky Martin hits buried somewhere in the passages of ambient drone. It does, however, start from the same premise as the Reed album: it relies heavily on our passionate interest in every twist and turn of the band's career, no matter how trivial or pretentious. You have to work at albums like "Kid A." You have to sit at home night after night and give yourself over to the paranoid millennial atmosphere as you try to decipher elliptical snatches of lyrics and puzzle out how the titles ("Treefingers," "The National Anthem," and so on) might refer to the songs. In other words, you have to be sixteen. Anyone old enough to vote may find that he has competing demands for his time-a relationship, say, or a job, or buying food, or listening to another CD he picked up on the same day. He may also find himself shouting at the CD player, "Shut up! You're supposed to be a pop group!" (The music critics who love "Kid A," one suspects, love it because their job forces them to consume music as a sixteen-year-old would. Don't trust any of them.) I suspect that people who have been listening to rock music for decades will have exhausted the fund of trust they once might have had for "challenging" albums. "Kid A" demands the patience of the devoted; both patience and devotion become scarcer commodities once you start picking up a paycheck.

 

[mikal]

i just don't think the 00's is "dumbed down." and i really don't think there's all that much "classic" about it, and i think Bono's lyrics are in some ways better than they were certainly pre-RAH. though ATYCLB was dubbed a return to form, i can't figure out what other album it's supposed to sound like. it's them as songwriters, first and foremost, and we could argue that's not their strong suit, but that was the challenge they laid out for themselves with that album.

i think the strongest anti-00's U2 argument to be made is that Bomb is treading water. and the band themselves seemed to somewhat agree -- they wanted to make a loud guitar album, and that they did. i find Bomb to be a bit too close to Bon Jovi, but it's thrilling in the way that i find CT thrilling. there's an adrenaline and a feel-good vibe to it, and there's nothing wrong with that! there's something wrong, in my opinion, to wanting all music to be dull and dour and "challenging" and wishing it were Kid A or Crooked Rain, Crooked Rain.

my musical tastes are defined more by what i like than by what i dislike. i see nothing to be gained by standing up against certain types of music. (there are certain messages in some music that i find objectionable, but that's a whole other discussion). it seems very adolescent to me to locate a notion of authenticity by walking through a record store and proclaiming this crap and that crap.

i like Kid A. it's an album that i did, indeed, find challenging. i remember being in Europe at the time and walking around old cities in the rain and listening to it, along with ATYCLB. i find both albums of equal worth, but i won't ever forget Nick Hornby's review of it in The New Yorker:

 

[Irvine511]

also, it's entirely possible that the "too challenging" quote was one small part of an interview that covered many other topics, and that it was selected as the headline precisely because it sounds like good old pretentious Bono is talking down about his audience, and that's what makes a good headline.

 

[Yahweh]

If you fast forward this to about 5:45 this is the attitude that U2 should take and shouldnt cater to anybody but themselves when they are writting music.

YouTube - Bono & Edge interview 1993_Part 2 of 2

 

[BVS]

If you fast forward this to about 5:45 this is the attitude that U2 should take and shouldnt cater to anybody but themselves when they are writting music.

I think you are missing a BIG part of that quotation, which is they were at the top, and they knew it so they knew they had room to fuck things up a little...

 

[Yahweh]

They should still know they are at the top. They have plenty of room to fuck things up. Unrealistic expectations lead to unachievable goals.

The big quote in the interview for me is "we have a very elastic audience weve pushed them and streached them theyve followed us out on a ledge"

What Bono is saying based on his quotation in the original interview is that the audience is no longer the same elastic audience and is dumbed down and to be honest I think that is not true at all.

The difference between U2 now and U2 then is instead of writting songs and developing a hit naturally through the music, they seem to want to craft a hit for the sake of it being a hit, and that was the issue that some people had with the previous 2 records before the current one.

Maybe U2s priorities have changed from creative ones to commercial ones....which I can find a quote from another interview from The Edge from Unforgettable Fire period saying that U2s goals have always been creative goals never commercial ones...well possibly that has changed.

 

[ozeeko]

The difference between U2 now and U2 then is instead of writting songs and developing a hit naturally through the music, they seem to want to craft a hit for the sake of it being a hit, and that was the issue that some people had with the previous 2 records before the current one.

Thank you. My thoughts exactly.

However, I think what you're saying applies more to the singles off BOMB and NLOTH. ATYCLB at the end of the day had some natural sounding hits.

 

[BVS]

I think that's bullshit in every aspect. Their audience has changed, there's no doubt about that. If they were so elastic Pop would have never hit them as hard as it did...

The whole concept of "dumbed down" I find to be pretty generic and if you really thought about it wouldn't make sense.

U2 has always been about creative goals AND hits, and this hasn't changed.

 

[ozeeko]

I think it all boils down to an inexplicable feeling that some U2 fans have in their collective gut. The feeling that U2's singles of the past 5 years or so seem a little disingenuous. A little forced. A little, like what's his name said up there, like "creating a hit for the sake of creating one". I feel that way. Others do as well. And a lot people don't and think U2 are doing exactly what they want.

Nothing is going to change that feeling in my gut that U2 are so much better than the singles we're being presented with, and the feeling that U2 aren't done(see MOS for proof of that)- they're just holding back and compromising.

 

[Yahweh]

Have they?

What about the U2 audience has changed if I may ask?

I dont know I have been a fan since 1986 and to be honest I dont think the majority of fans that have followed the band through thick and thin's expectations have changed.

They want to see "all the colours and all the feelings" as quoted from Mexico Popmart DVD.

If we wanted to see Bon Jovi and 2 chords and the truth I dont think U2 would have lasted this long.


Watch the Unforgettable Fire video and see what Paul Mcguiness says on it. I think he would say something totally different today if he was asked the same question.

The reality is that U2 is 50 years old as men and as Hold Me Thrill Me Kiss Me Kill Me Says "theylle want their money back if youre alive at 33".

I would say theyve done quite well for themselves, and are still at the top and should write music for music's sake not write it because a 16 year old will appriciate what you are doing....generally that isnt going to happen any longer, whether they want it to or not.

 

[Mr. V]

Nothing is going to change that feeling in my gut that U2 are so much better than the singles we're being presented with, and the feeling that U2 aren't done(see MOS for proof of that)- they're just holding back and compromising.

Bang, bang, fucking bang.

 

[U2DMfan]

I think a lot of it is in the songwriting itself.

Anyone who has written a lot of music (not just lyrics) knows that you sometimes are much more brilliant when you don't know what you're doing but far, far less often.

Whereas, once you get your skills honed and can throw some chord progressions together and write songs at a whim, then you are certainly 'technically' better but probably a lot less interesting (more often).

I'm talking about rock and roll here, folks or even some pop music.
The Beatles didn't have time to dwell over each and every catchy tune they pounded out, they recorded 2 and 3 albums in the time it takes U2 to record 1 (and maybe even more). Probably not fair to compare anyone to the Beatles in terms of songwriting prowess but the point still stands, some of that shit is magical because it was left alone at the right time.

And that is the trick, knowing when to leave it alone. It's just as subjective to the songwriter as it is to the listener. Just look at the debates over Xanax and Fast Cars or Native Son and Vertigo. etc.

U2 used to be entirely organic in the studio, the songs would arrive out of jams and they would just craft them from those skeletons. Then, they started figuring out what they were doing, and became better musicians, while being decidedly more contrived and in many cases, (because I believe it is inevitable) sucking the excitement out of what first sparked their interest in that piece of music.

it's a hard thing to quantify or maybe even qualify.
But if you could imagine in your head the evolution of a song like Bad contrasted with the evolution of a song like BD or Vertigo (which we know for certain were in several, labored states at different points) then you can imagine what I am talking about.

U2 were fine with the rough edges at one time and these days, absolutely not.
The subjectivity is that some folks like the more well crafted stuff and some like the more spontaneous sounding stuff. So to each their own, but more and more, beyond all of the nuance of talking about U2's "ambition" for songs, one thing is absolutely certain:

They do not go about their ambitions for the music in the same way.
The Joshua Tree was recorded in 6 months. Did they want it to be as huge as currently U2 wanted NLOTH to be? Sure, probably did. Were they as calculated and insecure in 1987 as they are now? I'd have to say, with confidence, 'no'.

 

[65980]

I sympathize with those who've been fans since the 80s and find the old-man version of U2 (specifically Bono) a bit overly concerned with commericiality. I'm one of those people, too, and I wouldn't at all be disappointed if the group decided to just play pubs in Ireland for the rest of their history, while releasing an album a year that ignored current industry trends.

We have to be a bit more understanding of their situation, though. It goes back to 1987 when they were the new uber-men of rock. Sure, if you read an interview with Edge in 1985, he seems really cool, a bit of outsider, and utterly unconcerned with following trends, all of which is good. But it's easy to be that way when you're 24 and your band is perceived as "outside the mainstream". In that position, no matter your record is #1 or #90, you're respected because you've either pushed into the mainstream with your cooler-than-normal music, or you've ignored commerciality completely. You can't lose in that position.

But after you've conquered the world and flown the flag as "world's biggest band" for about 10 years, it's more complicated. Now you've got two distinct generations of mass fandom to live up to (not to mention thousands of people's jobs that depend on you, indirectly), a sharper-than-ever critical scalpel ready to find fault with any mis-step, and a vocal and highly critical long-term fanbase that will crucify you for selling out. In short, they can't win after a certain point.

Now, given all that -- which has applied to them since about 1997 -- I think they've done remarkably well, certainly in terms of staying relevant in terms of sales and finding an audience with yet another (third) generation of fans (many of whom are on this forum). Critically, I think they've done all right this decade, though I'm not a fan at all of the current album (I'm in the minority here since I think NLOTH kind of stinks and HTDAAB is a minor-masterpiece).

So, while I concur that the quote of Bono's that leads off this thread (which is being way over-analyzed here, obviously) is indeed disturbing, I think we have to cut them some slack. Bear in mind Adam's recent comment that the success of The Joshua Tree took them 10 years (that is, until Pop's release!) to recover from and deal with. When you have this level of mass success for a long time, it does get addictive and I'm sure they're well-aware (after the PopMart tour) how quickly their commercial currency can slide. This is obviously one reason they continue to pursue younger fans and initiate bigger and bigger tours. I don't particularly like that, nor see the need for it, but from their perspective -- trying so hard to fight the rust of age and the acceptance of complacency -- I can sort-of understand it.

It's always the "next album" that will tell the story. At some point, they're clearly going to have to deal with a diminished audience and less cultural relevance. If the next one fails to set the world on fire again, I *think* we will see them scale down their operations and stop trying so hard to de-throne God.

 

[U2DMfan]

I'll just add one more recent example to what I'm talking about.

Supposedly Moment of Surrender, as it sits on the album was basically left alone from when it was first recorded (I am sure there were some minor tweaks) whereas Stand Up Comedy was called For Your Love and was re-written and recorded (based on the clip of FYL, sounding quite different) in the weeks right before they delivered the album.

It's certainly subjective but you don't have to be a musician to appreciate the difference between those two songs, not just in quality (whether you like it or not) but just in presentation.

I love, actually LOVE a song like Smile. I feel likes it spontaneous U2-deluxe.
A lot of people feel like it's unfinished. So, it's really a preference.
But in terms of Bono talking about "challenging", I think he's just talking about the most 'main' of the mainstream audience. And they feel the need to throw them a bone by putting out the songs like CT or probably Boots. If it takes that much effort, is it all that impressive to begin with?

I can't imagine what Still Haven't Found (to date, their biggest or second biggest hit in the US) would have sounded like had they agonized over it for months trying to turn it into more 'proper' hit. I think that's where it lies, highly subjective, but it's where the magic is. NLOTH has some of this, the previous two albums were almost totally void of it.

 

[U2DMfan]

We have to be a bit more understanding of their situation, though. It goes back to 1987 when they were the new uber-men of rock. Sure, if you read an interview with Edge in 1985, he seems really cool, a bit of outsider, and utterly unconcerned with following trends, all of which is good. But it's easy to be that way when you're 24 and your band is perceived as "outside the mainstream". In that position, no matter your record is #1 or #90, you're respected because you've either pushed into the mainstream with your cooler-than-normal music, or you've ignored commerciality completely. You can't lose in that position.

But after you've conquered the world and flown the flag as "world's biggest band" for about 10 years, it's more complicated.

I agree, it is complicated and it's not easily discussed without covering lots of bases. Their ambitions, the band's dynamic itself, it's personal dynamic with their families, within their 'camp' with the label, it's ambitions, it's ego, it's divisive creative want etc. and that's not even talking about the music itself, really. I mean it's one thing to want to make the 'rock' record and another to get everyone to agree on it.

But basically I think it comes down to simply saying, U2 cannot and will not be the band they used to be or the band that some want them to be. They are what they are and have been for quite some time.

My biggest problem is with those who refuse to admit the band has changed in order to excuse away current criticisms by saying "they've always been that way". It's an absolute certainty that they have changed (watch the youtube video posted recently) and it's also true that they've always had ambition for grandeur. But they do no go about things the same way, not in the least.

U2 (after 1996) is a different band, in many, many ways. Mostly having to do, IMO, with the creative differences within the band itself. Probably they were different in 1995, to what they were in 1987 and so on...some lament the turn towards more calculation.

I have no doubt that they always wanted to do well on the charts but the proof is in the pudding. They didn't delay any albums (just say in the 80's) because they couldn't. It's different by default.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Saying that U2 have always wanted hits (and that is absolutely true) works against an argument that says they’re just the same as they’ve always been. If they’ve always wanted hits just as badly as they do now, if they’ve always leaned on hits just as much as they do now, always judged themselves on hits as much as they do now, then that just strengthens their pre-1997 releases, and the process and decision making behind them, against their post-1997 releases, and what we assume is the process and decision making behind those.

If it was always that important to them (and it was) then there would have been some seriously tense stomachs on the night before a lot of those late 80s/early 90s singles dropped out there. Meanwhile, 'twas the night before Vertigo, when all through the house, not a creature was stirring, not even a mouse...

 

[ZOOTVTOURist]

They should still know they are at the top. They have plenty of room to fuck things up. Unrealistic expectations lead to unachievable goals.

The big quote in the interview for me is "we have a very elastic audience weve pushed them and streached them theyve followed us out on a ledge"

What Bono is saying based on his quotation in the original interview is that the audience is no longer the same elastic audience and is dumbed down and to be honest I think that is not true at all.

The difference between U2 now and U2 then is instead of writting songs and developing a hit naturally through the music, they seem to want to craft a hit for the sake of it being a hit, and that was the issue that some people had with the previous 2 records before the current one.

Maybe U2s priorities have changed from creative ones to commercial ones....which I can find a quote from another interview from The Edge from Unforgettable Fire period saying that U2s goals have always been creative goals never commercial ones...well possibly that has changed.

Great posting ...

 

[shart1780]

I don't give a crap how well the singles did to be honest. The album is their best in a very long time. This album isn't challenging. It's challening for the MTV crowd, but for people who actually listen to good, complex music it's not in the least bit challening. I'd like it to be way more challening. I want an album fiull of Fez's and Unkown Callers.

Oh yeah, and it sold a lot. To act like the album is a flop is ridiculous. I hope U2 doesn't turn their next album into a pop album for the sake of sales.