Has Bono Ever Publicly Apologized For Anything?

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.
On a serious note, though, you're making very good points!

You get the simple reality that in terms of output, hits, impact on music, image, etc-the 1980s are dominant for U2. Not going to change that....ask people about U2 and they'll say "I love I Will Follow" or they'll talk about New Year's Day or Sunday Bloody Sunday @Red Rocks or Bad @ Live Aid or reminisce about driving around and hearing Pride. They'll talk about being seniors in High School and skipping school to wait in line for Joshua Tree tour tickets...they'll talk about the intro to Streets. I don't think I have to continue.

That doesn't mean the 90's weren't absolutely brilliant, they were. And U2 acknowledges that. AB, as many have already pointed out, has been heavily represented all 3 00's tours. I'm not going over the stats or the specifics again-everyone else has already, but can anyone honestly say they expected The First Time on Vertigo? Or pick any 90s album track that became a staple on a 00s tour and ask if you really expected that.

Given the success of ATYCLB, U2 could have easily disowned Pop entirely on Elevation. Thrown in 2 more from ATYCLB and 2 more from the 80s and the critics and people they lost w/the 90s would've been jumping for joy. Instead, they played 4 songs from Pop and kept songs like Until The End Of The World and The Fly in prominent spots in the set list.

Nothing anywhere indicates any of them, even Larry, are in the least bit apologetic about the 90s in general or Pop specifically. In fact, I remember a Vertigo era interview where they were all talking about the classic U2 feel of the 2 00's albums to that point and Larry was the only person who said "look, we did Pop and we remain very proud of that."

You can look at 80s vs 90s stats in terms of live plays, but that shouldn't tell anyone even remotely familiar with U2 anything.

As for the live performances:

Even if MW and One aren't exactly what they were on Zoo TV, both sound great still. Look at EBTTRT and Ultraviolet on 360. The point remains that overall, U2 are every bit as good a live band now as they've ever been.

Gone: Definitely agree with you! 2001 had a slight edge over 1997 live versions, but I feel both were much better than the version on the album. If I want to hear Gone, I usually go right to Elevation or Popmart Leeds. Never to the studio version.

Mysterious Ways: Definitely best on Zoo TV, a little downgrade for Popmart, but the 2001 tweaking made it awesome again. I'm with you there, I like Elevation MW a lot! Better than Zoo TV...that's a stretch, I think. Bono's voice wasn't good enough in 01. Vertigo was ok, nice to still have the drums and the slide solo. 360 started out extremely weak(especially Larry) but I thought it tightened up after 2010 Turin and sounded great. Would've been nice if Larry did the original beat again, but Bono sang it great, Edge and Adam were into it and the snippets were better as 360 went on.

One: Best on Zoo Tv, still pretty good on Popmart and Elevation, though obviously Bono struggled. The only bad tour for One was Vertigo, in my opinion. Completely flat, none of them seemed to care. I can think of 1-3 good performances the entire tour. 360 One started out a few steps above Vertigo(nothing special) but I think got much better after Turin. I saw Montreal and Philly 2011 and both performances were pretty close to Zoo TV quality.

Discotheque I think had it's best performance on the Vertigo tour.

:up: Right on dude. Right on.
 
On a serious note, though, you're making very good points!

Such as what? You disagreed with more of opinions than you agreed with in this post and he made only one point with any merit at all (and even that was a factually incorrect reference to album output comparison) when the subject at hand was the actual live representation of the 80's versus the 90's eras live during the 00 tours.

You get the simple reality that in terms of output, hits, impact on music, image, etc-the 1980s are dominant for U2. Not going to change that....ask people about U2 and they'll say "I love I Will Follow" or they'll talk about New Year's Day or Sunday Bloody Sunday @Red Rocks or Bad @ Live Aid or reminisce about driving around and hearing Pride. They'll talk about being seniors in High School and skipping school to wait in line for Joshua Tree tour tickets...they'll talk about the intro to Streets. I don't think I have to continue.

It's a good thing you didn't because you are clearly taking things out of context in an attempt to make a point and not looking at the entire picture (something Von is quite fond of so I can see why he thinks that you're "right on.")

You are solely referencing a relatively older demographic here. Most people I talk to U2 about are younger (because they hear me playing them and can't wait to tell me how much they hate U2 and Bono) and most of the songs they know are from the 00's and only a couple of their older hits. They have no idea what Red Rocks or Live Aid are.

One of my closest friends primarily recognizes / likes their 90's output.

Another friend (who was in fact a fan of JT during High School) mostly talks about their recent tour.

That doesn't mean the 90's weren't absolutely brilliant, they were. And U2 acknowledges that. AB, as many have already pointed out, has been heavily represented all 3 00's tours. I'm not going over the stats or the specifics again-everyone else has already, but can anyone honestly say they expected The First Time on Vertigo? Or pick any 90s album track that became a staple on a 00s tour and ask if you really expected that.

I never mentioned AB specifically. I was referencing their 90's output as a whole.

And no, not "everyone has already."

In fact, once the numbers were run and posted things got pretty quiet in terms of useful discussion.

Not one person out of those who scoffed (when I said that they had played a lot more songs from the 80's than the 90's during the 00's) had the dignity to recognize or admit that they were wrong or apologize for attacking me for suggesting it (after it had been proven.)

In regards to "The First Time", expected or not, the way the played it on the Vertigo tour, to me, was borderline disgraceful. At least learn the lyrics and have the band rehearse / play the song. They did that song a disservice. It felt like, here's a (poorly delivered) bone for those who liked Zooropa since we don't play much of that album since we are primarily trying to cater to the masses right now.

Most of these acoustic versions are a cop-out for the band not putting in the time to play the songs right anyway. I would prefer they don't play them at all if that is the way it is going to be. On that note, can you think of a song from the 80's (apart from SBS which was poignant) that they dumbed down live like this? Why do they primarily do this with the 90's and 00's songs? I could see how this would make one think that they hold the 80's work in a higher regard.

This is a strange post for me because your mostly proving my point throughout it yet you started out stating that Von had some good points which you then go on to mostly disagree with?

Given the success of ATYCLB, U2 could have easily disowned Pop entirely on Elevation. Thrown in 2 more from ATYCLB and 2 more from the 80s and the critics and people they lost w/the 90s would've been jumping for joy. Instead, they played 4 songs from Pop and kept songs like Until The End Of The World and The Fly in prominent spots in the set list.

Nothing anywhere indicates any of them, even Larry, are in the least bit apologetic about the 90s in general or Pop specifically. In fact, I remember a Vertigo era interview where they were all talking about the classic U2 feel of the 2 00's albums to that point and Larry was the only person who said "look, we did Pop and we remain very proud of that."

You can look at 80s vs 90s stats in terms of live plays, but that shouldn't tell anyone even remotely familiar with U2 anything.

No? Don't actions speak louder than words? Playing over twice as many 80's songs as 90's songs for the first two tours of the 00's says a lot. Sometimes you need to read between the lines as there is a big difference between what people say and do. Also, U2 often lean towards political correctness these days.

In the 90's Bono was talking about not caring if they lost the Pop kids and in the 00's Larry (I believe) said they were trying to compete with Brittney spears. Bono even promised the "young people of America" that they would "continue to abuse their position and F up the mainstream."

What happened to that promise? Isn't abandoning that mindset completely apologizing (in a sense) for that sort of experimentation and leading instead of following?
As for the live performances:

Even if MW and One aren't exactly what they were on Zoo TV, both sound great still. Look at EBTTRT and Ultraviolet on 360. The point remains that overall, U2 are every bit as good a live band now as they've ever been.

UV was done fairly well and was exciting. EBTTRT, the "re-mix", although fresh, did not quite work (for me) and did not hold a candle to earlier versions. Plus Bono, to my knowledge, completely avoided the falsetto.

Live, overall - agreed. But not overall when it comes to playing the 90's material live. This is to be expected though, as I said, the live version usually never improves from the tour following the album they were on.

Gone: Definitely agree with you! 2001 had a slight edge over 1997 live versions, but I feel both were much better than the version on the album. If I want to hear Gone, I usually go right to Elevation or Popmart Leeds. Never to the studio version.

Mysterious Ways: Definitely best on Zoo TV, a little downgrade for Popmart, but the 2001 tweaking made it awesome again. I'm with you there, I like Elevation MW a lot! Better than Zoo TV...that's a stretch, I think. Bono's voice wasn't good enough in 01. Vertigo was ok, nice to still have the drums and the slide solo. 360 started out extremely weak(especially Larry) but I thought it tightened up after 2010 Turin and sounded great. Would've been nice if Larry did the original beat again, but Bono sang it great, Edge and Adam were into it and the snippets were better as 360 went on.

One: Best on Zoo Tv, still pretty good on Popmart and Elevation, though obviously Bono struggled. The only bad tour for One was Vertigo, in my opinion. Completely flat, none of them seemed to care. I can think of 1-3 good performances the entire tour. 360 One started out a few steps above Vertigo(nothing special) but I think got much better after Turin. I saw Montreal and Philly 2011 and both performances were pretty close to Zoo TV quality.

Discotheque I think had it's best performance on the Vertigo tour.

"Gone". for me, never topped the studio version - especially the more delicate parts of the vocal. What did you like better about the 01 version? That they leaned more towards a rock approach instead of the experimentation that made "Pop" great in the first place?

Again, I don't understand your post entirely. You say Von some good points and then go about disagreeing with most of what he said (such as, for the most part, MW and "One" live these days) and inadvertently lending credence to my suggestion that they were indirectly, if not directly, apologetic about their 90's work to American audiences.

Lastly, although I did like those versions of Disco, it was a cop-out that they made rockier versions of those songs in the first place (which is, in a sense, an indirect apology for the brave experimentation that the album was fundamentally built on and ultimately made it so exciting.)
 
Bono should apologize for U2 not playing more 80s songs. About half their albums were released then and 80% of the bands classic songs are from that decade. But instead we get Even better ... yet again
 
Such as what? You disagreed with more of opinions than you agreed with in this post and he made only one point with any merit at all (and even that was a factually incorrect reference to album output comparison) when the subject at hand was the actual live representation of the 80's versus the 90's eras live during the 00 tours.



It's a good thing you didn't because you are clearly taking things out of context in an attempt to make a point and not looking at the entire picture (something Von is quite fond of so I can see why he thinks that you're "right on.")

You are solely referencing a relatively older demographic here. Most people I talk to U2 about are younger (because they hear me playing them and can't wait to tell me how much they hate U2 and Bono) and most of the songs they know are from the 00's and only a couple of their older hits. They have no idea what Red Rocks or Live Aid are.

One of my closest friends primarily recognizes / likes their 90's output.

Another friend (who was in fact a fan of JT during High School) mostly talks about their recent tour.



I never mentioned AB specifically. I was referencing their 90's output as a whole.

And no, not "everyone has already."

In fact, once the numbers were run and posted things got pretty quiet in terms of useful discussion.

Not one person out of those who scoffed (when I said that they had played a lot more songs from the 80's than the 90's during the 00's) had the dignity to recognize or admit that they were wrong or apologize for attacking me for suggesting it (after it had been proven.)

In regards to "The First Time", expected or not, the way the played it on the Vertigo tour, to me, was borderline disgraceful. At least learn the lyrics and have the band rehearse / play the song. They did that song a disservice. It felt like, here's a (poorly delivered) bone for those who liked Zooropa since we don't play much of that album since we are primarily trying to cater to the masses right now.

Most of these acoustic versions are a cop-out for the band not putting in the time to play the songs right anyway. I would prefer they don't play them at all if that is the way it is going to be. On that note, can you think of a song from the 80's (apart from SBS which was poignant) that they dumbed down live like this? Why do they primarily do this with the 90's and 00's songs? I could see how this would make one think that they hold the 80's work in a higher regard.

This is a strange post for me because your mostly proving my point throughout it yet you started out stating that Von had some good points which you then go on to mostly disagree with?



No? Don't actions speak louder than words? Playing over twice as many 80's songs as 90's songs for the first two tours of the 00's says a lot. Sometimes you need to read between the lines as there is a big difference between what people say and do. Also, U2 often lean towards political correctness these days.

In the 90's Bono was talking about not caring if they lost the Pop kids and in the 00's Larry (I believe) said they were trying to compete with Brittney spears. Bono even promised the "young people of America" that they would "continue to abuse their position and F up the mainstream."

What happened to that promise? Isn't abandoning that mindset completely apologizing (in a sense) for that sort of experimentation and leading instead of following?


UV was done fairly well and was exciting. EBTTRT, the "re-mix", although fresh, did not quite work (for me) and did not hold a candle to earlier versions. Plus Bono, to my knowledge, completely avoided the falsetto.

Live, overall - agreed. But not overall when it comes to playing the 90's material live. This is to be expected though, as I said, the live version usually never improves from the tour following the album they were on.



"Gone". for me, never topped the studio version - especially the more delicate parts of the vocal. What did you like better about the 01 version? That they leaned more towards a rock approach instead of the experimentation that made "Pop" great in the first place?

Again, I don't understand your post entirely. You say Von some good points and then go about disagreeing with most of what he said (such as, for the most part, MW and "One" live these days) and inadvertently lending credence to my suggestion that they were indirectly, if not directly, apologetic about their 90's work to American audiences.

Lastly, although I did like those versions of Disco, it was a cop-out that they made rockier versions of those songs in the first place (which is, in a sense, an indirect apology for the brave experimentation that the album was fundamentally built on and ultimately made it so exciting.)

1.)I only really disagreed with Von on the live performances.

2.)You don't quite get what I'm talking about, and what I think he is saying too. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I am not trying to argue that the 90s got better or equal representation than did the 80s. I can read U2 gigs as well as anyone.

I've read between the lines, thank you, but then I've zoomed out to context. Given Pop and Popmart, and the critical reaction to this era, U2 could have VERY EASILY abandoned in their ACTIONS any representation of this era. Instead, as I pointed out and you glossed over, they played 4 Pop songs. How they played them is irrelevant to the discussion-it amounts to nothing more than personal preference.

Yes, I have friends just like you describe who only know a couple 80s hits and think U2 are BD and Vertigo. However, talk to most people who have more than a passing interest in the rock genre, regardless of age, and for them, U2 will be associated with the 80s. That's still how most people see it. U2 has to deal with that reality when playing live.

3.)Most importantly, you having an OPINION that acoustic performances are cop outs or that Gone and Discotheque weren't played as well on the 00's tours does not in any way, shape or form add up to U2 somehow apologizing for the 90s work. That's where you make the huge, inexplicable leap.

Without agreeing or disagreeing with these criticisms, I've heard plenty here complain about dumbed down 00's versions of Bullet, MOTD, Pride and Desire, and that's just off the top of my head.

I think you're conveniently ignoring some things in a futile effort to prove that U2 are sorry for the 90s.

As best we can tell, from public statements, they're not.

None of us can read their minds, so we'll never know.
 
What?

Did you just change your position again? Like 2 times in 1 post? 80s/90s? No speculation eh, followed by your very own speculation?


It's obviously a typo, Snoopy. Obviously. And my "position" can't change because it's based on statistical representation of what they actually play. And yeah, I said I didn't want to speculate (and then did so in parentheses, but shouldn't have because it just provided you with an opportunity to make some half-assed sarcastic remark about something that has nothing to do with what U2 play live).
 
Arguing for under-representation of "the 90's" is the wrong chain of logic to follow. Anyone around here should know that Achtung has been represented well on every tour since ZooTv. U2 weren't and aren't ever going to ignore one of their top 2 most popular albums. Now crunch those numbers on POP and Zooropa as a percentage of all songs performed on the last three tours. Divide it by total shows, it would give you the number of average POP/Zooropa performances per gig. You might want to include Passengers or even HMTMKMKM so that the forum police don't have another 'out'.

That has always, always, always been the 'charge' of the "90's fanboys". That U2 was ignoring, for the most part, the music between Achtung and ATYCLB. Achtung Baby never really had jack shit to do with it. This is why Twitter and Interference blew up when they finally broke out Zooropa. That was the under-represented part. Not the thousandth performance of 'Even Better'. I can't believe this wasn't more painfully obvious to both sides of this argument...well, actually I can.

I don't think U2 ignored them as an apology for anything. They, but especially Bono and Edge, are proud of most of that work. I think Zooropa is one of Edge's favorite U2 albums. I think they were trying to re-brand themselves a Beatles-esque 'singles' band for the ATYCLB hype and moving into the 21st century. And citing those paltry acoustic performances is fair but speaks for itself.

I don't know what those numbers would represent to some of the deluded masses around here but it will at least be more indicative of the actual "90's fanboy" argument that has taken place on Interference for all these years.
 
both the 80s and 90s are represented in 00s shows by 'classic' U2 + live favourites
and on Vertigo and 360 they actually started adding some surprised (from both decades)

there is no difference between how the band treat 80s vs 90s
you can crunch numbers until the cows come home, but that won't change

if anyone really wonders why the band plays Sunday Bloody Sunday while 'ignoring' POP, then any sort of 'argument' will be useless
 
both the 80s and 90s are represented in 00s shows by 'classic' U2 + live favourites
and on Vertigo and 360 they actually started adding some surprised (from both decades)

there is no difference between how the band treat 80s vs 90s
you can crunch numbers until the cows come home, but that won't change

if anyone really wonders why the band plays Sunday Bloody Sunday while 'ignoring' POP, then any sort of 'argument' will be useless

I dont think anyone is wondering why they favour the 80s, it's that some people deny that they do.
 
Arguing for under-representation of "the 90's" is the wrong chain of logic to follow. Anyone around here should know that Achtung has been represented well on every tour since ZooTv. U2 weren't and aren't ever going to ignore one of their top 2 most popular albums. Now crunch those numbers on POP and Zooropa as a percentage of all songs performed on the last three tours. Divide it by total shows, it would give you the number of average POP/Zooropa performances per gig. You might want to include Passengers or even HMTMKMKM so that the forum police don't have another 'out'.

Of course they're not going to ignore AB or JT, but since the 80s still dominate with the inclusion of AB and JT, and both are represented equally, I didn't think it necessary to do actual work to prove a point that should be evident to anyone that pays attention.
 
Redhill, I don't think man has ever landed on the moon. What do you think?

I think that you're a troll who I have yet to witness contribute any relevant discussion to this thread. One of those who likes to stand on the sidelines and throw stones because it is easier than making the effort to take a stand of any sort.
 
Good god it's the Morrissey thread all over again.

Um, not really. It is however another example of juvenile and deluded people here on Interference, who, once faced with some facts, would rather attack the thread (or me personally) instead of adding to the discussion.
 
Arguing for under-representation of "the 90's" is the wrong chain of logic to follow. Anyone around here should know that Achtung has been represented well on every tour since ZooTv. U2 weren't and aren't ever going to ignore one of their top 2 most popular albums. Now crunch those numbers on POP and Zooropa as a percentage of all songs performed on the last three tours. Divide it by total shows, it would give you the number of average POP/Zooropa performances per gig. You might want to include Passengers or even HMTMKMKM so that the forum police don't have another 'out'.

That has always, always, always been the 'charge' of the "90's fanboys". That U2 was ignoring, for the most part, the music between Achtung and ATYCLB. Achtung Baby never really had jack shit to do with it. This is why Twitter and Interference blew up when they finally broke out Zooropa. That was the under-represented part. Not the thousandth performance of 'Even Better'. I can't believe this wasn't more painfully obvious to both sides of this argument...well, actually I can.

I don't think U2 ignored them as an apology for anything. They, but especially Bono and Edge, are proud of most of that work. I think Zooropa is one of Edge's favorite U2 albums. I think they were trying to re-brand themselves a Beatles-esque 'singles' band for the ATYCLB hype and moving into the 21st century. And citing those paltry acoustic performances is fair but speaks for itself.

I don't know what those numbers would represent to some of the deluded masses around here but it will at least be more indicative of the actual "90's fanboy" argument that has taken place on Interference for all these years.

Thank God for reasonable people.
 
It all makes sense now.

That was nowhere close to the question that I put forth in that thread but good job BVS for buying into the ignorant and distorted perceptions cobbler is trying to pass off as gospel.

Do you beLIEve everything people tell you without doing any research and forming your own opinion?
 
I think that you're a troll who I have yet to witness contribute any relevant discussion to this thread. One of those who likes to stand on the sidelines and throw stones because it is easier than making the effort to take a stand of any sort.

It's much more fun than arguing about whether Bono likes the year 1996 better than the year 1988 for 40 pages and posting statistics from a tour that ended almost a year ago.
 
1.)I only really disagreed with Von on the live performances.

His opinions on those performances was a big part of his argument...
2.)You don't quite get what I'm talking about, and what I think he is saying too. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I am not trying to argue that the 90s got better or equal representation than did the 80s. I can read U2 gigs as well as anyone.

Yea, I understand what you are trying to say it just does not hold water.
I've read between the lines, thank you, but then I've zoomed out to context. Given Pop and Popmart, and the critical reaction to this era, U2 could have VERY EASILY abandoned in their ACTIONS any representation of this era. Instead, as I pointed out and you glossed over, they played 4 Pop songs. How they played them is irrelevant to the discussion-it amounts to nothing more than personal preference.

Actually, your argument lacks in that department. U2 generally play a few songs from the last album in a new tour (promoting the subsequent album) so this really does not say much at all.

And since you brought up "glossing over", what about the points I made in my post about the bands backtracking in regards to experimentation (Bono's pop-kids and mainstream comments in the 90's, the rock mixes and live versions of Pop songs after it's release, etc.) Those were very valid points that people conveniently overlooked since they did not fit into their distorted view.

Also, how they played the songs is not irrelevant to the discussion. People tend not to put as much time into things they don't care as much about.
Yes, I have friends just like you describe who only know a couple 80s hits and think U2 are BD and Vertigo. However, talk to most people who have more than a passing interest in the rock genre, regardless of age, and for them, U2 will be associated with the 80s. That's still how most people see it. U2 has to deal with that reality when playing live.
I see what you are saying but cannot wholeheartedly agree. U2 is one of those rare acts who have been able to transcend the 80's band label (primarily through the judo-like and brave move of Achtung, the ZOO TV tour, and further experimentation in the 90's.)
3.)Most importantly, you having an OPINION that acoustic performances are cop outs or that Gone and Discotheque weren't played as well on the 00's tours does not in any way, shape or form add up to U2 somehow apologizing for the 90s work. That's where you make the huge, inexplicable leap.

As mentioned, although you glossed them over, I gave several other examples....and, yes, remixing songs to be rockier such as Disco and Mofo is backtracking on the experimentation that the album was built on. Also, as mentioned, they changed their stance in the 00's from f'ing up the mainstream to competing with Brittney Spears. Although I understand that re-invention has been a crucial component for U2, this was an uninspiring re-invention for me (and others) and lacked balls.

No "inexplicable leap" - just facts to substantiate the point I am trying to make. Despite if you construe these things to be an apology you can't deny that they backtracked in regards to experimentation.
Without agreeing or disagreeing with these criticisms, I've heard plenty here complain about dumbed down 00's versions of Bullet, MOTD, Pride and Desire, and that's just off the top of my head.
None of those are good examples because there are at least 3 band members involved (if not the entire band.) I was specifically referencing the acoustic numbers with two or less band members involved. Let's be consistent here and not try to distort things.
I think you're conveniently ignoring some things in a futile effort to prove that U2 are sorry for the 90s.

Not at all. The reality is that you are omitting a lot of relevant information in an effort to distort perceptions.


None of us can read their minds, so we'll never know.

We may not know for sure but we can see what U2 has done (as well what they have said) and reference it when making our cases.

Talking about what we perceive without any substantiation or relevant facts to back it up does not get us any close to the truth.
 
It's much more fun than arguing about whether Bono likes the year 1996 better than the year 1988 for 40 pages and posting statistics from a tour that ended almost a year ago.

Having fun at other people's expense is not my brand of fun. Sounds like you might still be stuck in elementary school...
 
They play better now than they did in 92, 93, or 97.

Ultraviolet 92 >>>>> Ultraviolet 09

I don't know what's been improved there, to be honest. Same arrangement, worse vocals.

EBTTRT sounds good though, I'll say that. Great new arrangement. I also think Discotheque was (briefly) improved on Vertigo.
 
It's much more fun than arguing about whether Bono likes the year 1996 better than the year 1988 for 40 pages and posting statistics from a tour that ended almost a year ago.

Well, if stats are the only way to get people who are so smug in their ignorance to accept reality and stop being asses...
 
Ultraviolet 92 >>>>> Ultraviolet 09

I think that one from 360 is more wide open. That's why I like it more. I also love the fact Edge plays guitar lines from the LP version he didn't play in 92/93.

Ultimately, it's an "A+" stacked up next to an "A."

So, I kinda win no matter which recording I crank.
 
His opinions on those performances was a big part of his argument...

No, he was making the same simple point that I am.

The performances discussion was a bit of a side thing I think.


Yea, I understand what you are trying to say it just does not hold water.

How?

I'm making a simple point that 80s vs 90s numbers don't tell the whole story.

Make the logical connection for how the 00's tours represent an apology for the 90s. You haven't..........


Actually, your argument lacks in that department. U2 generally play a few songs from the last album in a new tour (promoting the subsequent album) so this really does not say much at all.

Yes, but what album was received as poorly or as widely viewed as a misstep(not by me, but by the masses, in comparison to the other albums)? None of them were.

4 regulars from Pop on Elevation(as many as JT got on Zoo Tv) compared to 2 regulars from the smash hit Atomic Bomb on 360.

An argument is lacking, and it's certainly not mine.

The point remains: Given the climate in 2001, if U2 were truly "sorry" for the 90s or wanted to walk away from them, they could've easily played more 80s and ATYCLB and been praised to no end for it.

And since you brought up "glossing over", what about the points I made in my post about the bands backtracking in regards to experimentation (Bono's pop-kids and mainstream comments in the 90's, the rock mixes and live versions of Pop songs after it's release, etc.) Those were very valid points that people conveniently overlooked since they did not fit into their distorted view.

So what? You act like they were some kind of big revelations you've given us when they're only 2 of the most discussed topics on here.

I didn't overlook them, I just didn't think they were too relevant. Everyone knows U2 backtracked on experimentation after Pop. Doesn't mean they regretted it or were sorry for it.

So what about the fucking up the mainstream comments? That's where their thinking was at in 1991, it was in a different place in 1997 and a different one again in 2001. Doesn't make them sorry for what came before.



Also, how they played the songs is not irrelevant to the discussion. People tend not to put as much time into things they don't care as much about.

You're speculating here because you don't care for the songs as they've been presented live on recent tours. You don't know and I don't know how much U2 cared about these songs in recent years.

All we know is they played them when they had 6 gazillion other more immediate, stadium pleasing songs they could've played.

I see what you are saying but cannot wholeheartedly agree. U2 is one of those rare acts who have been able to transcend the 80's band label (primarily through the judo-like and brave move of Achtung, the ZOO TV tour, and further experimentation in the 90's.)

One of the reasons I love them. Don't get me wrong, not one of those "love the 80s, down w/ the rest" U2 fans.

Very glad they're not Def Leppard or Whitesnake!

Just talking about how most people view them, for better or worse.


As mentioned, although you glossed them over, I gave several other examples....and, yes, remixing songs to be rockier such as Disco and Mofo is backtracking on the experimentation that the album was built on. Also, as mentioned, they changed their stance in the 00's from f'ing up the mainstream to competing with Brittney Spears. Although I understand that re-invention has been a crucial component for U2, this was an uninspiring re-invention for me (and others) and lacked balls.

2001 ATYCLB was backtracking on experimentation.

The rockier remixes of Gone, Disco, MOFO, not so much. Maybe they're not as out there as the originals, but you could never mistake any of them for 80s or 00s U2. Or any other band for that matter.

Fact of the matter is, U2 considered Pop to be unfinished. I think they were going for a more coherent power chord heavy album with an experimental/moody vibe. The remixes reflected that.

Off the track completely for a second, I quite like Pop but think it would've made more sense and kicked a hell of a lot more ass if the studio versions were more like the live versions. I also would've had Holy Joe and Hold Me...Kill Me on that album. A balls to the walls, dark, experimental rock album with the moodier Velvet Dress and Wake Up Dead Man and the transcendent Please to tie it all together.

Either way, U2 re releasing and rearranging songs live does not mean they're sorry for them or the ideas that spawned them. Think of all the reinventions of Bullet live.

No "inexplicable leap" - just facts to substantiate the point I am trying to make. Despite if you construe these things to be an apology you can't deny that they backtracked in regards to experimentation.

Woah, woah, woah!!

You're moving the goal post quite a bit here.

Never denied that they backtracked w/experimentation, I was addressing the point of the thread, which was the absurd notion that U2 has run around apologizing, in word or in deed for the 90s.

None of those are good examples because there are at least 3 band members involved (if not the entire band.) I was specifically referencing the acoustic numbers with two or less band members involved. Let's be consistent here and not try to distort things.

Really? I'm distorting things?

These are new rules.

Be glad you're not in court here!

Even if we accept your absurd mid discussion rule change, do you care to tell me exactly what Adam and Larry contributed to Elevation Tour performances of Desire and In God's Country??

We can go on and on with songs that allegedly, in some people's opinions, were dumbed down on tours subsequent to their release. That's not the damn point, though. Remember? For the 1000th time, we're discussing whether U2 regret and are apologizing for the 90s.

They're not!

Not at all. The reality is that you are omitting a lot of relevant information in an effort to distort perceptions.

:huh:

How have I tried to distort anyone's perceptions?

I never tried to misrepresent song plays or quotes or anything of the sorts, you've done quite a bit of that.

I don't care what people perceive, this is a pretty damn simple, straightforward question:

IS THERE ANYTHING THAT SHOWS, IN WORD OR IN ACTION, THAT U2 ARE SOMEHOW SORRY FOR THE 90S OUTPUT, SPECIFICALLY, ZOOROPA, PASSENGERS AND POP???????

ANSWER: NO, IN FACT, THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THE CONTRARY IS TRUE!


We may not know for sure but we can see what U2 has done (as well what they have said) and reference it when making our cases.
E]

I've done this. You've read what you wanted into these things and then blown them up 1000 times.

Talking about what we perceive without any substantiation or relevant facts to back it up does not get us any close to the truth.

You should know, as that's what you're doing.

All I'm saying on this topic......
 
Ultraviolet 92 >>>>> Ultraviolet 09

I don't know what's been improved there, to be honest. Same arrangement, worse vocals.

EBTTRT sounds good though, I'll say that. Great new arrangement. I also think Discotheque was (briefly) improved on Vertigo.

There's more guitar, and imo better vocals. Especially compared to the '93 versions where Macphisto pretty much spoke rather than sing it.
 
This thread is still going? Bloody hell.

In all of these pages, how many direct public apologies by Bono have we uncovered? Oh wait, sorry, this is all about tangentially related dick waving, isn't it?
 
When it comes to touring, the band are obviously overwhelmingly dictated to by the reality of playing infront of a live audience.

I think it was Bono who said that there's nothing like staring 90,000 people in the face to really focus the mind. There's no time for whimsy, you need plenty of power and intensity in order to grab the audience by the throat and keep them there.

On tour, the rockier renditions of some of the Pop tracks seemed an absolute necessity to me. Some of the synthy/ethereal sounds of that album would have felt far too lightweight and elusive on stage.

Discotheque, Mofo, Last Night, Gone and Please all recieved a massive injection of grit and dynamism to ensure they connected and IMO were far better for it. That's not to say I don't think the studio version of Gone is superior to any live incarnation, I do, but for the sake of playing in front of so many people, I think the band did what they had to do.

The Elevation version was obviously the final step in erasing all trace of experimentation, but bearing in mind the tone of that particular tour, the band couldn't really have approached it any differently.

I've never felt the band in any way regret the majority of the 90's work, or that they prefer the 80's to the 90's. To me, it's the audience that have always preferred the 80's to the 90's. Once again, the band are dicated to by what they feel will produce the best response from the people in front of them.

Yeah, some of the acoustic performances on recent tours could be put down to indifference, but songs go through phases for both the fans and the band. For example, it was pretty clear on the later legs of ZOO TV that Bono didn't really want to be performing songs like Bad or Sunday Bloody Sunday.

Even Better Than The Real Thing was brilliant in 92 and pretty bland during Popmart, but made a storming comeback on 360. Who is to say what particular shape a tune will take in the future?
 
This is getting old.

My point, which was a logical tangent from the original question posed in this thread, was that U2 has been, to a degree, apologetic towards American audiences about their work in the 90's.

Ultimately, it has been proven, for whatever the reasons may be, that they played almost 2 1/2 times as many songs from the 80's than the 90's during the 00 tours (and this includes AB songs.)

Since there could be no factual data to refute that, some folks just can't help but attack that first point with their feelings and perceptions.

Regardless, it seems obvious to me (and have substantiated this idea with events to evidence such) that U2 were not able to and have not been able to completely stand behind their own bravery and experimentation if the masses (particularly in America) don't embrace it with open arms.

At this point it has turned into "dick waving" as Axver put it mostly because only a handful of posters are able or willing to make logical arguments...the rest had nowhere else to turn.

Despite this, it is my sincere hope for U2 that they can make the music they want without worrying about the masses so much in the future. One thing I did not like about NLOTH is that it felt like they were "sticking their town in the water" instead of diving in...in regards to being experimental and making the music they wanted.

Ultimately, to me, they are making music based out of fear (and have made comments to that effect) these days (for two, perhaps there albums now) instead of faith.

I know that "thinking big" and wanting to appeal to the masses is something that served them for a long time but I think that a time will come soon when they will need new dreams to move forward...and Bono will have to stop worrying about relevance (at least from the perspective he is now.)

Although it would be exciting if they made an album that really captured people's imaginations again, I would hope that, at some point, they can stop with this approach. That seems to be the only way they could achieve it anyway. When making Achtung, I don't think they were really worried about relevance as much as growing as musicians and breaking new ground (at the very least, for them.)

If they continue with a mindset of gauging the merit of the music by the reception it gets from the masses (particularly in America), I fear that I will never be inspired again by this band that has meant so much to me and that is, at the end of the day, really what I am fighting for here.

Instead of "chasing Zeitgeist", they need to be "making Zeitgeist." I know that sounds a little cheesy, but they have done this in the past by setting the pace and breaking new ground for themselves...with bold faith and not fear.

Commit to an idea 100% (and immerse yourselves in it for a short while - spending years and using endless producers only dilute the potency of the music and cause slow implementation), challenge yourselves musically again , blaze a path for others to follow and (Bono I am looking at you) stop worrying so much about what the masses think. Perhaps it is counter-intuitive but this is how you can stay relevant and vital.

And, no, having the money to build a spaceship does not count.
 
Once again, the band are dicated to by what they feel will produce the best response from the people in front of them.

They don't have to be (anymore, at least) and would not be if they did not cater to the masses. In fact, if they blow their own minds people will follow them instead of the other way around. Achtung (and the Zoo tour concept) was so strong that they opened the show with half the damn album and people loved it.
 
IS THERE ANYTHING THAT SHOWS, IN WORD OR IN ACTION, THAT U2 ARE SOMEHOW SORRY FOR THE 90S OUTPUT, SPECIFICALLY, ZOOROPA, PASSENGERS AND POP???????

ANSWER: NO, IN FACT, THERE IS QUITE A BIT OF EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THE CONTRARY IS TRUE!

I never said they were actually sorry. I said that they had been apologetic about it (towards American audiences) by catering the setlists towards popular opinion.

It is clear statistically that they have done just that (and favored the 80's material by over 2-1.) If the numbers were to be run for just those 3 albums it would be a statistical landslide.

U2 need to (re)grow a pair and blow peoples minds again (including their own) and you need to learn simple arithmetic.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom