Bono: 'U2 album was too challenging'

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Status
Not open for further replies.
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'.

I have to agree with all of this.

As Bono has said several times, in the early days their greatest strength was their naivety. When I think back to the 80's, I think of a band who were mainly operating on instinct and I love the rough around the edges quality of so much of the music. It was all so gloriously uncomplicated back then and so incredibly primal.

They couldn't stay like that forever of course but I do think that something was lost when they started to become better musicians.

I have no problem with the band having big hit singles and the idea of trying to craft a single is fine in theory. It's just that in U2's case it often ends up sounding far too calculated and, dare I say it, a little clinical.

There's something genuinely organic about the likes of Pride, WOWY or Streets, they feel earnest and visceral and the very opposite of manufactured. The bands technique is sharper than ever but I feel that some of the magic has gone missing along the way.

I don't think having (seemingly) limitless time in the studio is a good idea, it allows the band to overthink things too much. For me, their willingness to play around with deadlines since Pop has, more often than not, been a disservice to the albums which have followed. Perhaps they should have just bitten the bullet and released NLOTH in late 2008, we may have ended up with something altogether more natural and ultimately more successful.
 
I think success or not, as defined by U2 themselves, is increasingly about numbers thesedays. In terms of album sales they had damn good numbers for a long time. Now they don't. I hope that makes them focus more on the music. I like NLOTH but I do sense that the band (+ producers) played it too safe in search of those numbers. I hope next time they more simply use their musical judgement. Do what they really want instead of 2nd guessing what might sell 10 million copies. My worry is that U2 will lose interest once they know that 10 million benchmark can't be met any longer. Such is the dominence of the numbers to this band's self image.

I want them to turn inwards next time they go into the studio. Perhaps the SOA songs will be a bit like this? Hope so.
 
poor bono. imo NLOTH as like the other two albums of the 00s, just doesn't have the musical and lyrical quality as their 90s predicessors. and overproducing doesn't help as well.
 
I find discussions as to what is relevant, commercial, poppy etc amusing, because I don't listen to much mainstream music. I like underground house, soul, rnb, reggae. U2 is pretty much the only rock music I listen to anymore, I pretty much detest what rock has become. So I hear a catchy pop song and it moves me, I don't give a flying fuck who makes it, so long as it sounds ok. So I end up saying I like some songs by some artists that the music snobs cringe at. Including, apparently, U2.

I don't want to be challenged. Just play me the fucking songs and I'll tell you if I like them. At least with me you won't have to worry about whether or not I'm comparing you to bubble gum pop or indie or anything else, including your old albums. I'm comparing you to what I feel when I hear your song.

Over and out.
 
this article makes me sick.

U2 judging their success by how many albums they sell and whether or not the "mainstream" likes the album.

this is the day music has officially died.
 
U2 needs to realize that RELEVANCE is their currency. Not sales, not radio.

If they attempt to woo sales and radio as they did with Boots/Crazy/SUC they will cease being relevant, IMO. Just last night, the reference to "new songs" made me cringe. There is a tacit lack of confidence that has been sown by the lackluster reaction to the album and the songs in a live setting.

What has always set U2 apart is people come to see the new songs--they demand it. It seems less full throated this time around. Again, because I feel the songs aren't there. Even NLOTH, a song I like, doesn't sound all that great live--When I first heard that song I thought it was SURE to be the opener, and now I know why it isn't. It lacks something live.

I agree with this 100%. I think part of the issue with NLOTH live is where it's placed in the set bookended by a relatively slow acoustic number (SIAMYCGOO) and Elevation. But it's real problem is the live arrangement which clearly still needs work. I think it was clearly meant to be this albums' big epic "Sort of Homecoming" or "Streets" and it just isn't.

IMO, NLOTH is U2's weakest album in decades. It's being poorly received not just because of overall declining cd/record sales, but because a lot of the material just isn't that strong when matched up to most of U2's previous music. To my ears, it's a combination of over working some of the tunes and a lack of focus on the finished album as a whole. "Moment of Surrender" is the only song that holds up to U2's best music.

In many ways, all lot of this mirrors what happened with the "Pop" album and how the band struggled with some of the songs live in '97 although I'd argue Pop was and is an infinitely better album. It's just fortunate the current tour is doing so exceptionally well unlike much of the Popmart tour. However, I have noticed in some recent quips and in Bono's banter during the LA show a small level of frustration and disappointment over how the last album has been received which seems to indicate the band doesn't understand and handle negative opinions/sales very well.

I honestly can't see the band playing more than a couple songs with any regularity off No Line in future tours. "Boots" is going to go the way of "Discotheque" unfortunately in that it may only occasionally show up in dramatically reworked ways in future tours.

T.B.
 
I honestly can't see the band playing more than a couple songs with any regularity off No Line in future tours. "Boots" is going to go the way of "Discotheque" unfortunately in that it may only occasionally show up in dramatically reworked ways in future tours.

Kind of a derail, but I've been wondering this too. Not just in the context of success or failure of NLOTH. Only history really is the final judge. I haven't been to a show, I have no desire personally to go to a stadium and see one band member at a time (in the round), so I only have bootlegs and the youtube show to go off of, but from what I've heard, none of the NLOTH songs seem to be standing out. Breathe is a soft opener and not all that well sung. Boots is cool, but well, it's Boots afterall so yeah, I agree, little staying power.

The two consistantly best performances/arrangements for me this tour are TUF and UV where typically, there's at least a couple from each new album on its respective tour I've quite liked (Vertigo/Stories for Boys, BD/The goal is soul, Please, etc).

On the album, I love NLOTH, Breathe, Crazy, and MOS but none of them are grabbing me in their live arrangements. Then again, this is the first tour I've skipped since Popmart.

I'm getting really curious about what the third/next leg will bring. If SoA does come out, how much will be performed live, will we see new arrangements, additional NLOTH songs, etc.
 
I'd like to read the entirety of what he said before making a complete judgment-but "too challenging" certainly comes across as a underestimation of fans/insult. And "grown up on a diet of popstars"..well I didn't. Maybe that is a result of coveting younger fans (for whatever reasons)-not that all younger fans have grown up on such a diet either but sometimes you reap what you sow.
 
This is a bit more accurate. Bono doesn't mention fans, he is talking about listeners of pop music. So in that respect, I'd say he's 100% correct.

"Bono said that while songs such as One or Beautiful Day weren't massive or immediate hits, he was disappointed the band didn't quite "pull off the pop songs" with the new work.

He added: "But we weren't really in that mindset and we felt that the album was a kind of an almost extinct species, and we should approach it in totality and create a mood and a feeling, and a beginning, middle and an end. And I suppose we've made a work that is a bit challenging for people who have grown up on a diet of pop stars.""

U2 'album didn't pull off hits'
 
Marty, you really thought elfa was a woman??? :lmao:!!! This is the highlight of this boring over-analytical thread.
 
i agree about Adam's camera work. it was such a disappointment that i almost didn't buy the album.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom