Has U2 Peaked?

[U2Fan101]

If U2 hadn't cared about being big they wouldn't have cared that Pop and Popmart were relative failures.

Ouch. I love me some POP. My favorite album.

 

[U2girl]

Another excellent post. It really annoys me when Bono boasts that U2s essence is 'joy'. Like you, I beg to differ. I think that the best songs have emerged out of tension, or at least out of ambivalence. As you say, Electrical Storm is perhaps the last song to arrive this way. I can really feel the post- 9/11 discord in the air when I listen to that. Too many of their recent songs lack ambiguity.

I agree with him. The vast majority of U2's albums has, despite dark topics, underlying optimism/joy/belief in humanity underneath.

And, tension is fine when you're in your 20s and 30s...it doesn't work when you're 40 or 50.

If U2 didn't care about big, Passengers would be a U2 album.

 

[U2Fan101]

You miss my point. I think that since 1997, U2 did care about being big. They cared before then for sure, but not to the same extent, not to an extent that prevented them recording Passengers; not to an extent that prevented them from recording Pop!

Actually, I agree with you but will take it further.

I think they cared about being big with POP in a satirical sort of way, and then when that failed, they REALLY cared about being big and tried to do "The biggest band in the world" and "we're applying for the job." with ATYCLB.

 

[BVS]

But I think that after ZOO TV they thought they could do almost everything and still be big. Then they found out they couldn't and made ATYCLB to be "the biggest band in the world" again.

Exactly.

I think certain members of U2 still would like to record and experiment more along the lines of Passengers, and maybe they do, but in the 90's they had gained enough clout to actually release it.

If they truly didn't care, it would have had their names on the project, plain and simple.

 

[snugglemedoctor]

half message board half man kind of love thing is better then no love thing do i have that right.

 

[nielsgov]

half message board half man kind of love thing is better then no love thing do i have that right.

Keep posting. It's hilarious.

 

[monsieur fly]

I agree with him. The vast majority of U2's albums has, despite dark topics, underlying optimism/joy/belief in humanity underneath.

And, tension is fine when you're in your 20s and 30s...it doesn't work when you're 40 or 50.

If U2 didn't care about big, Passengers would be a U2 album.

1) I am not sure how this contradicts what we have been saying. A mixture of darkness and joy is compelling- hence the ambivalence to which I referred earlier. The problem is that since 1997, joy alone has propelled most of their songs.

2) Your second point strikes me as curious, not to mention defeatist. I don't recall Bob Dylan's acclaimed Time Out Of Mind being full of joy. And if tension was good enough for him in his late fifties, it is good enough for U2 now. I could add further examples- David Bowie's Heathen, Bruce Springsteen's Devils And Dust and Magic etc.

3) I think there were more practical reasons for the name title. When all is said and done, they made the record, and Bono was happy to appear in the video for Miss Sarajevo. BVS and others are trying to create straw men. Of course U2 have always cared about being big, but the question is of extent- and like U2Fan, I think they became very self-conscious about wanting to be big after Pop.

 

[monsieur fly]

Actually, I agree with you but will take it further.

I think they cared about being big with POP in a satirical sort of way, and then when that failed, they REALLY cared about being big and tried to do "The biggest band in the world" and "we're applying for the job." with ATYCLB.

Yes, I'd go along with that view.

 

[BVS]

The problem is that since 1997, joy alone has propelled most of their songs.

Really? Maybe you have different albums than I do...

3) I think there were more practical reasons for the name title. When all is said and done, they made the record, and Bono was happy to appear in the video for Miss Sarajevo. BVS and others are trying to create straw men. Of course U2 have always cared about being big, but the question is of extent- and like U2Fan, I think they became very self-conscious about wanting to be big after Pop.

If it was a strawman it would be easy for you to tear down(and you haven't) and others wouldn't be so quick to agree.

 

[BVS]

Actually, I agree with you but will take it further.

I think they cared about being big with POP in a satirical sort of way, and then when that failed, they REALLY cared about being big and tried to do "The biggest band in the world" and "we're applying for the job." with ATYCLB.

They weren't trying to be big in a satirical way, they were trying to be big and be satirical.

In the 80's U2 just came off as a hard working band that was striving to be on top, in the 90's they achieved that and during the decade of the anti-hero they didn't have much competition so they didn't have to be vocal about their pursuits, in 97 things started to change and U2 realized their coattails had worn out. So with ATYCLB they just vocalized what they had been doing all along.

 

[monsieur fly]

Really? Maybe you have different albums than I do...

If it was a strawman it would be easy for you to tear down(and you haven't) and others wouldn't be so quick to agree.

No I don't have different albums. When Bono talked about HTDAAB in U2 by U2, he said that the album was about 'getting back to your sense of wonder. Maybe you can never be naieve again but you can see the world without sunglasses.' Talking about COBL he adds 'I thank God daily for endless amounts of grace and covering the cracks'. Referring to ABOY, he talks about beginning again so that you can be 'free of the mistakes you've made.' I don't deny that there have been some dark songs too, but in my view, and in the view of some others here the overall texture has been 'joyful'. U2387 and UToo have made this observation elsewhere on the thread.

As for your second point (and shrug, quelle surprise), I suggest you re-read my post. I have never denied that U2 have cared about being big. I simply wanted to talk about 'extent'. I think there is a case for a more sophisticated argument than either 'they don't care' or 'they do care'. They have always cared, but I think they have cared more at some times than at others.

 

[U2girl]

1) I am not sure how this contradicts what we have been saying. A mixture of darkness and joy is compelling- hence the ambivalence to which I referred earlier. The problem is that since 1997, joy alone has propelled most of their songs.

2) Your second point strikes me as curious, not to mention defeatist. I don't recall Bob Dylan's acclaimed Time Out Of Mind being full of joy. And if tension was good enough for him in his late fifties, it is good enough for U2 now. I could add further examples- David Bowie's Heathen, Bruce Springsteen's Devils And Dust and Magic etc.

3) I think there were more practical reasons for the name title. When all is said and done, they made the record, and Bono was happy to appear in the video for Miss Sarajevo. BVS and others are trying to create straw men. Of course U2 have always cared about being big, but the question is of extent- and like U2Fan, I think they became very self-conscious about wanting to be big after Pop.

1) Joy amid heavy topics, like I said.

2) Referring specifically about (sexual) tension, it worked for AB. Now, at best it would be a song about Viagra. Also you mention solo artists who for some reason are able to do good work in their 50s. There are very few bands that can do it.

3) You can debate extent, but the fact is the band said no to putting the U2 label on that album (when even Eno wanted to do it). That shows they did care - you can call it "too much Eno", I think thinking what the U2 audience might think had a share in it too.

 

[BVS]

No I don't have different albums. When Bono talked about HTDAAB in U2 by U2, he said that the album was about 'getting back to your sense of wonder. Maybe you can never be naieve again but you can see the world without sunglasses.' Talking about COBL he adds 'I thank God daily for endless amounts of grace and covering the cracks'. Referring to ABOY, he talks about beginning again so that you can be 'free of the mistakes you've made.' I don't deny that there have been some dark songs too, but in my view, and in the view of some others here the overall texture has been 'joyful'.

It's a great quote, but no where does it say that joy alone has propelled most songs since 97. Just pay attention to the songs.

As for your second point (and shrug, quelle surprise), I suggest you re-read my post. I have never denied that U2 have cared about being big. I simply wanted to talk about 'extent'. I think there is a case for a more sophisticated argument than either 'they don't care' or 'they do care'. They have always cared, but I think they have cared more at some times than at others.

But to call it a strawman was a cop out. I've already touched upon this, the only reason they came off as caring less in the 90's is because they had that luxury, there was no competetition where they were. That luxury is the reason we got some of the albums we did, we wouldn't have if AB and ZooTV wasn't a huge hit. That luxury is also the reason for their getting cocky with PopMart, hense the being knocked back down to size and ATYCLB. So in a way that luxury was a double edged sword.

 

[BVS]

Also you mention solo artists who for some reason are able to do good work in their 50s. There are very few bands that can do it.

Very true!!!

 

[monsieur fly]

1) Joy amid heavy topics, like I said.

2) Referring specifically about (sexual) tension, it worked for AB. Now, at best it would be a song about Viagra. Also you mention solo artists who for some reason are able to do good work in their 50s. There are very few bands that can do it.

3) You can debate extent, but the fact is the band said no to putting the U2 label on that album (when even Eno wanted to do it). That shows they did care - you can call it "too much Eno", I think thinking what the U2 audience might think had a share in it too.

1) Ok, I think that's fair, but you will surely accept that it differs from albums. I think that there is very little joy on AB, Zooropa and Pop, for instance, perhaps more on TJT.

2) I was not talking solely about sexual tension- I think you can have other forms of tension, which materialise later in life and serve the same purpose. Even so you can still have relationship tension- that's what Dylan was writing about on Time Out Of Mind. And whilst I agree that few artists make great records later in their career, U2 can and ought to be one of those acts!

3) Extent is what I am debating.

 

[monsieur fly]

It's a great quote, but no where does it say that joy alone has propelled most songs since 97. Just pay attention to the songs.

Well that is hardly surprising as I don't happen to copy my views out ad verbatim out of books. I was merely pointing out that when talking about the grain of U2's work in recent times, Bono references words like joy, naivety and regeneration. Perhaps I should have referred to 'the trend of their work' rather than 'most songs'. I am sorry for not being precise enough. That said, I don't need you to tell me to pay more attention to the songs, thank you. I have done that at length- to my mind, they speak largely of joy. It would be tiring, not to mention tiresome to type out all of the examples, but of their more prominent songs, one could easily make cases for Elevation, Vertigo, COBL, ABOY, SUC and Breathe with its 'I've found grace inside of a song' mantra.

 

[U2girl]

1) The amount varies but I think it's never really gone (except maybe Pop).

2) True. That said there might be less tension in your life when you're married with children and 50 than being in your 20s or 30s. Mortality may be the last big subject.

3) So is there none of it when U2 goes against Eno in calling the album Passengers and not U2 ? That's debatable.

 

[BVS]

Well that is hardly surprising as I don't happen to copy my views out ad verbatim out of books. I was merely pointing out that when talking about the grain of U2's work in recent times, Bono references words like joy, naivety and regeneration. Perhaps I should have referred to 'the trend of their work' rather than 'most songs'. I am sorry for not being precise enough. That said, I don't need you to tell me to pay more attention to the songs, thank you. I have done that at length- to my mind, they speak largely of joy. It would be tiring, not to mention tiresome to type out all of the examples, but of their more prominent songs, one could easily make cases for Elevation, Vertigo, COBL, ABOY, SUC and Breathe with its 'I've found grace inside of a song' mantra.

I wouldn't say Vertigo has anything to do with joy.

And for everyone of those songs you have a BD(which is deceptive), Stuck, ES, SYCMIOYO, GOYB, MOS, POE, OSC, etc...

I think it's a sign of growth that Bono decided to tackle joy a little more in the 00's it's a tough subject to write about.

 

[U2girl]

Elevation, SDABTO, Crazy tonight, Breathe, Yahweh. I think these are the only ones with absolutely no-holding-back joy.

 

[snugglemedoctor]

So he is one big firestorm of joy?

 

[snugglemedoctor]

mysteryism is great except when it gets nothing done.....like all this time

 

[snugglemedoctor]

I completely agree Ive been shocked by man's mysterious ways but I cant continue in a comatose state forever because its basically a lifeless way to be

 

[65980]

Referring specifically about (sexual) tension, it worked for AB. Now, at best it would be a song about Viagra.

"Stand Up Comedy".

 

[U2Fan101]

"Stand Up Comedy".

 

[Earnie Shavers]

If they truly didn't care, it would have had their names on the project, plain and simple.

I don't really think that's right. Not releasing Passengers as U2 made sense for a bunch of reasons: They saw Passengers as more of a loose collective than a firm band, and at the time they probably thought they were onto something, a continuing (more than just Vol.1) alternate outlet for something quite different in many, many ways to everything U2 is, and probably always with a similar, loose fluid lineup. Certainly not the first (or last) band or artist to do something like that, for very similar reasons. It's not a recognition of a lack of balls at all. U2 is the band U2, Passengers is the fluid collective Passengers. Different members, different music, different attitude. It gives them freedom, it's not constriction out of fear. It's more brand protection, or deliberate brand differentiation than 'big' protection. I adore Passengers, I think it's absolutely a key part of their 'journey' or whatever, I sit it in it's rightful place between Zooropa and Pop on my shelf, but if I were in that room my vote also would have been for 'Passengers' over 'U2', excited at the possibilities for this alternate group shadowing U2 into the future. The big disappointment with Passengers is that there's no Vol.2, and that there likely never will be one.

For an example of U2 grabbing their balls, saying a prayer and dropping something super risky out there - hello Zooropa. A fast follow up, quickly recorded, quickly released, mid tour, surprising almost everyone, another large shift in sound pivoting directly away - again - from something highly successful, Numb and Lemon as lead singles?

 

[BVS]

I don't really think that's right. Not releasing Passengers as U2 made sense for a bunch of reasons: They saw Passengers as more of a loose collective than a firm band, and at the time they probably thought they were onto something, a continuing (more than just Vol.1) alternate outlet for something quite different in many, many ways to everything U2 is, and probably always with a similar, loose fluid lineup. Certainly not the first (or last) band or artist to do something like that, for very similar reasons. It's not a recognition of a lack of balls at all. U2 is the band U2, Passengers is the fluid collective Passengers. Different members, different music, different attitude. It gives them freedom, it's not constriction out of fear. It's more brand protection, or deliberate brand differentiation than 'big' protection. I adore Passengers, I think it's absolutely a key part of their 'journey' or whatever, I sit it in it's rightful place between Zooropa and Pop on my shelf, but if I were in that room my vote also would have been for 'Passengers' over 'U2', excited at the possibilities for this alternate group shadowing U2 into the future. The big disappointment with Passengers is that there's no Vol.2, and that there likely never will be one.

First of all you need to look at the context of the argument to understand my comment, Passengers was brought up an an example of U2 not caring about being big, hense my comment.

Secondly I understand the reason for calling it Passengers, but sadly it really wasn't as fluid with different artist as I think they originally intended. It's for the most part U2 and Eno, with guest spots by Pav and Howie B. They've had bigger line ups on U2 albums.

For an example of U2 grabbing their balls, saying a prayer and dropping something super risky out there - hello Zooropa. A fast follow up, quickly recorded, quickly released, mid tour, surprising almost everyone, another large shift in sound pivoting directly away - again - from something highly successful, Numb and Lemon as lead singles?

Given where U2 were and the climate of the early 90's, this really wasn't as big of a risk that people label it these days. U2 had huge amounts of clout those days so a quick slightly pivoting sound album wasn't that big a stretch. Especially since it was mid-tour, it could have failed and the tour would have still been a huge success. Don't get me wrong I love the album and I love that U2 was in such a vein creatively that they can do so, but it really wasn't as brave as some people like to say. Numb as a single? A little more brave, but honestly the only reason it worked was the fun video. It got very little radio play, it was a video single if anything.

 

[monsieur fly]

I wouldn't say Vertigo has anything to do with joy.

And for everyone of those songs you have a BD(which is deceptive), Stuck, ES, SYCMIOYO, GOYB, MOS, POE, OSC, etc...

I think it's a sign of growth that Bono decided to tackle joy a little more in the 00's it's a tough subject to write about.

I disagree about Vertigo- at the very least, joy is a major part. Bono does describe it as 'a little epiphany' in U2 by U2. There are also the lines 'You give me something I can feel' and 'your love is teaching me how to kneel'. I think one could make a case for them being celebratory. And for everyone of the songs you've listed you have Yahweh, Grace, UC, Magnificent, Crazy Tonight, Wild Honey etc. But you seem to have conceded that to an extent at the bottom of your post. Typically, however, I don't agree with your conclusion.

 

[monsieur fly]

I don't really think that's right. Not releasing Passengers as U2 made sense for a bunch of reasons: They saw Passengers as more of a loose collective than a firm band, and at the time they probably thought they were onto something, a continuing (more than just Vol.1) alternate outlet for something quite different in many, many ways to everything U2 is, and probably always with a similar, loose fluid lineup. Certainly not the first (or last) band or artist to do something like that, for very similar reasons. It's not a recognition of a lack of balls at all. U2 is the band U2, Passengers is the fluid collective Passengers. Different members, different music, different attitude. It gives them freedom, it's not constriction out of fear. It's more brand protection, or deliberate brand differentiation than 'big' protection. I adore Passengers, I think it's absolutely a key part of their 'journey' or whatever, I sit it in it's rightful place between Zooropa and Pop on my shelf, but if I were in that room my vote also would have been for 'Passengers' over 'U2', excited at the possibilities for this alternate group shadowing U2 into the future. The big disappointment with Passengers is that there's no Vol.2, and that there likely never will be one.

For an example of U2 grabbing their balls, saying a prayer and dropping something super risky out there - hello Zooropa. A fast follow up, quickly recorded, quickly released, mid tour, surprising almost everyone, another large shift in sound pivoting directly away - again - from something highly successful, Numb and Lemon as lead singles?

Yes, I agree with this post. I am not quite convinced by BVS and others' counter-arguments, especially about Zooropa. The fact that Numb had a fun video takes nothing away from its pretty obscure sound.

 

[BVS]

But you seem to have conceded that to an extent at the bottom of your post. Typically, however, I don't agree with your conclusion.

Concede to what? That Bono writes about joy more than he did in the 90's? Well, of course, but that wasn't your argument. And so what if he does? Why do you hate joy?

I think the 00's have given us a very nice balance that the 90's didn't have, I do think Bono took a brave step to write more about joy, it's difficult. Have I always been pleased with the results? No. But I would have been bored too if Bono had stuck with his Pop writing mode...

 

[BVS]

Yes, I agree with this post. I am not quite convinced by BVS and others' counter-arguments, especially about Zooropa. The fact that Numb had a fun video takes nothing away from its pretty obscure sound.

You missed my point completely. I said nothing about the video taking away Numb's obscure sound. My point was that Numb wouldn't have gotten much play anywhere if it wasn't for the video.