Steve Lillywhite says "NLOTH" was 'failure'

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Personally I love the violins in Sunday Bloody Sunday. And it was Edge's idea to put them on, not Lillywhite's,as stated in U2 by U2.
 
I think that if U2 thinks that NLOTH was "challenging", that's a problem.

Do I think there are great songs on the album? Yes. I love NLOTH, Moment of Surrender, Breathe, and Cedars of Lebanon. They belong in the pantheon of U2 classics.

Do I think there are good songs on the album? Yes. Unknown Caller could have been great, but it doesn't have the lift-off that it should have in the chorus, and so that brings it down to me. Crazy Tonight is a catchy tune, but nothing earth shattering. Get On Your Boots is cool, but not great. I like Fez, but it doesn't take my breath away.

Are there bad tunes? Well I'm not a fan of SUC until 2:25 into the song, where it FINALLY gets remotely interesting. And WAS takes too long to achieve it's big payoff (Bono's beautiful vocal at 3:46). But even a good album has a low point.

I just don't think these songs fit together. The same way that Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own and Original of the Species are beautiful, beautiful songs but they just sound strange when put on an album with All Because of You and Vertigo.

Not saying that every song needs to sound the same. I'm just saying that the album should sound cohesive. "Trying To Throw Your Arms Around The World" and "Acrobat" don't sound like the same color, but they're in the same picture. Does that make sense? The songs on NLOTH don't.

I'm not hating on the album. I listen to it when I want to hear "Breathe" or "Cedars" or any of the songs individually. But to me, it's an album for the iPod age, where we can pick songs individually or on shuffle rather than digest the album as a whole. ATYCLB is reviled by some on here (why? I don't know. I love it for what it is.) But I can put ATYCLB on in the morning and just listen to the whole thing start to finish. It's got that bittersweet, yet hopeful sound that resonates for me and when I'm in that mood, I can put it on and listen to it the whole way through. It's a complete body of work. NLOTH isn't, at least not to me.

I think the problem is that the band didn't follow through on what the album was "supposed" to sound like. They compromised the sound. I'm not pulling this out of thin air, Eno says so in the Rolling Stone article from March of 2009 about the album (there's a link to it in the New Music thread). He was involved in the making of the album, and he seems disappointed in the article at the band's decision to move away from the album's original concept (which yielded songs like MoS).

This is why I think the criticism of Lillywhite is both warranted and unwarranted. It's warranted because Lillywhite is clearly the man they go to when they want to make their music a little more "watered down" for the radio. The Edge, in the Rolling Stone article, says Lillywhite makes creativity meet commerce, but I think that's just rock star speak for "watering down." That's Lillywhite's talent: he takes these songs and makes them hits, even at the risk of making them sound generic or more dull than their full potential (Vertigo, for example, is the U2 "generic" song that most people point to and deride on this board. But listen to it in pieces. The riff is monstrous and the melodies are fantastic. There's just something about the execution that seems...bland, by U2 standards.)

That being said, is it Lillywhite's fault? No. That's what he does. This is similar to when Metallica hired Bob Rock and all the Metallica fans blamed him for watering down their sound because he made it sound like a hit for rock radio. But that's what they hired him for, so if we're going to blame anyone, it should be U2 for employing Lillywhite's services, not Lillywhite for doing what he does best.
 
I don't know how I replied to a thread without actually saying what I wanted to say in the first place:

I think Lillywhite is pushing so hard for this retraction out of fear. Was he misquoted? Absolutely. But I think he's worried about talking out of school. Bands can get touchy when producers start going to the press and discussing the albums in anything less than a positive light. Even Eno and Lanois, responsible for this band's three most critically acclaimed and successful masterpieces, were cast out of Eden for a little while because they publicly stated that they wanted some writing credentials for some of the songs on ATYCLB. The band didn't like it, and that's why you didn't see their work on HTDAAB (LaPoE was an ATYCLB holdover).
 
Can you tell me specifically which U2 song they rehashed to make Beautiful Day?

Any sound from their 80's stuff, got the coke riff in there anyway. Not saying its a bad song but it was like rehashing old sounds again.

As for an earlier comment about their next direction, I think that you can tell by their destruction of Mercy with that bloody awful "Because" forced chorus crap, that hit singles is their priority. Mercy was a good song in its original form. From what you can hear of the live version they have tried to add a singalong chorus that might turn it into more radio friendly rubbish. Definetly some bad vibes coming from the destruction of that song.
 
How can you listen to UC or Magnificent and be like, 'Oh, that's great music!' You think there's a reason U2 aren't playing those songs live anymore? Like Pop (which the band admitted they weren't happy with) NLOTH missed the mark.

They're still playing Magnificent every night, along with 3 others from NLOTH, including Moment of Surrender which as far as I'm concerned is up there with Bad.
 
Please, dont compare this to Pop. This is a good album. It's not amazing like the last two were... but it's not a flop in any means.

Magnificent is a good song. Perhaps not on the levels of the other hits that U2 has produced, however. And the fact that it's only good and not great or phenomenal (I mean, if we are comparing it to... lets say... Vertigo or Beautiful Day) would be the sole reason this album didnt match the others.

It has the substance that the others had, just not the headliner. I mean... it's up in the air as to which song really is the 'headliner' so to speak. Get on Your Boots has charted the best... but Magnificent or Crazy probably would've done better as the first single. Either way, none of them are phenomenal. Great in terms of a U2 fan, but in terms of a commercial success they're not going to chart very high with any of the 3.
 
I think that if U2 thinks that NLOTH was "challenging", that's a problem.

I think it was in a way.

You have at least two songs that would never work on a stadium tour; Cedars and WAS.

I can't count how many people still don't "get" MOS or UC. We had posters saying MOS was trying too hard to be 'One', probably one of the biggest WTF moments on Interference. And just go to one of the shows where they played it and one realizes that the general public doesn't get UC.

I hear too often that Crazy is some safe teeny bopper song and I have to wonder what song they are listening to...

So yeah, in a way it is...
 
Any sound from their 80's stuff, got the coke riff in there anyway. Not saying its a bad song but it was like rehashing old sounds again.

I knew you couldn't do it. It sounds nothing like their 80's material, I can't see it fitting on any of their 80's albums. Just because Edge uses the delay again doesn't mean it's "rehashed", I think those that make this argument have limited musical knowledge and vocabulary therefore they just throw the word "rehash" out there...
 
...I think those that make this argument have limited musical knowledge and vocabulary therefore they just throw the word "rehash" out there...

Could be. Or "those that make this argument" could be responding to Edge's dislike of the sound of his own riff back in 2000 (for "Beautiful Day"), which he called the "Classic Coke riff" -- in that it reminded him of the 80s -- and tried to discourage the others from using (he lost that argument). But I guess Edge doesn't have as much musical knowledge and vocabulary as you.

Back on topic, I have always liked the sounds that Steve Lillywhite has gotten on records by people like Chris Cornell, Counting Crows, The La's (their one and only LP probably wouldn't exist if Lillywhite hadn't been brought in to "save" it), Morrissey, and World Party -- oh, and some bozos called U2. Those guys might not even have made it to their 4th album without Lillywhite's help...

The above poster (The John Tree) is exactly right that criticism of the Steve Lillywhite sound is both warranted and unwarranted. (That was a very good post, in fact.) He seems to be good at helping bands pull out the songs' melodies and emphasize the listener-friendly aspects of recordings, which is all well and good but can be uncomfortable for the seasoned fan who expects more subtlety (however, 'U2' and 'subtlety' have never been comfortable bed-fellows). Lillywhite's production job on Counting Crows' Hard Candy is a good example of what he does --- he takes a band with a clear, strong sound and gives it a little extra 'oomph' to make it that bit more accessible. As a fan of the three Counting Crows LPs prior to his work with them, I don't really find his sound necessary on their 4th album, but I can appreciate what they were trying to do by hiring him (get a bit more radio-friendly, basically).

But I don't think Lillywhite only does radio-friendly stuff. Based on the evidence -- and I admit this is all speculation since we all really know jack-squat about what the "producer" is doing in the studio -- it would seem that what Lillywhite is really good at is giving the artist what they want. His production never seems to overpower the artist, which is a criticism sometimes thrown at Daniel Lanois (whose two LPs with Bob Dylan, for example, are immediately identifiable as his handiwork since they sound completely unlike anything else Dylan has done).

I do think we over-rate the producers nowadays. Lillywhite, I think , is the "old-school" kind of producer who is no bullshit, who gives it straight, and just records the songs as best he can to bring out their strengths; whereas, I think Lanois and Eno are more like collaborators who also push the studio buttons.

Finally, let's pause to remember that Lillywhite mixed "Where the Streets Have No Name" and "With or Without You".
 
Rank Edge's moles:

1. That one
2. The other one
3. He probably doesn't have another, but I dare to dream
 
He belongs in the 80s, as far as U2 is concerned.

They seem to parachute him into the studio everytime they feel scared a song isn't radio-friendly enough.

At this point he's a crutch.

Agreed, though you can say it's been hapenning for a long time now as they did the same on TJT and AB, but with great results back then.:heart:
 
Honestly, the best pure pop of their career was written with Jimmy Iovine. I see no problem with bringing him back, even though I'll concede that his "sound" is pretty anonymous.

Shit, just anything but Lillywhite next time. Record some spacy sounds with Nigel Godrich, make a REAL punk rock from Venus record with Steve Albini. Anything but Lillywhite.
 
Honestly, the best pure pop of their career was written with Jimmy Iovine. I see no problem with bringing him back, even though I'll concede that his "sound" is pretty anonymous.

Shit, just anything but Lillywhite next time. Record some spacy sounds with Nigel Godrich, make a REAL punk rock from Venus record with Steve Albini. Anything but Lillywhite.

If he were lined up to produce the next record I wonder if he would be making any such comments about NLOTH? Would he not be a bit more guarded right now? Hopefully, they do something along the lines of what LM just said. I'd happily settle for another Eno Lanois production, just not Lillywhite please.
 
Could be. Or "those that make this argument" could be responding to Edge's dislike of the sound of his own riff back in 2000 (for "Beautiful Day"), which he called the "Classic Coke riff" -- in that it reminded him of the 80s -- and tried to discourage the others from using (he lost that argument). But I guess Edge doesn't have as much musical knowledge and vocabulary as you.

This is not how it happened, but you pretty much helped me prove my point. The phrase "classic coke riff" WAS used by the band but not in this context, like I said limited vocab.

And this poster's answer was "any sound from the 80's", are we really to believe that UF, WAR, Boy, and JT all sound the same? This is an extensive musical vocabulary?
 
This is not how it happened, but you pretty much helped me prove my point. The phrase "classic coke riff" WAS used by the band but not in this context, like I said limited vocab.

And this poster's answer was "any sound from the 80's", are we really to believe that UF, WAR, Boy, and JT all sound the same? This is an extensive musical vocabulary?

Definitely! it could be argued that the difference in sound between War and TUF is as great as the difference between Rattle and Hum and Achtug Baby. The 80's U2 did not all sound the same.
 
I don't know how I replied to a thread without actually saying what I wanted to say in the first place:

I think Lillywhite is pushing so hard for this retraction out of fear. Was he misquoted? Absolutely. But I think he's worried about talking out of school. Bands can get touchy when producers start going to the press and discussing the albums in anything less than a positive light. Even Eno and Lanois, responsible for this band's three most critically acclaimed and successful masterpieces, were cast out of Eden for a little while because they publicly stated that they wanted some writing credentials for some of the songs on ATYCLB. The band didn't like it, and that's why you didn't see their work on HTDAAB (LaPoE was an ATYCLB holdover).

U2 and their producers go way back too much for that. If they kept Lanois despite the tensions on AB and Eno with his credits-whining after ATYCLB I don't see how Lillywhite would get dropped for this. (ie, stating what the band felt, and one of the other producers confirmed already)

I don't think the band ever approached Eno and Lanois for Bomb - because they wanted to work with someone else - Chris Thomas. Until that failed and Lillywhite to the rescue. (some might say it should have been Lillywhite from the start, alone and not an army of producers but that's another topic)

But this IS interference so...get lost Lillywhite. :shrug:
 
I don't think anyone argued that "everything sounded the same in the 80s". The poster was simply suggesting that parts of "Beautiful Day" harken back to a certain sound of 80s' U2, something that the band themselves seem to have agreed with.
 
NLOTH was not a failure. NLOTH was actually a reality check, which the band has ignored. The total sales of the top albums when Bomb was released were drastically different from those when NLOTH was. The music industry has changed yet the band's expectations have not. Having a top five album at the end of the year cannot be considered a failure. The album's overall sales should knock home the reality of today's music industry to the band not disappoint them.

Would a different lead single have made a difference? Maybe slightly. I have seen no major majority on this site as to what the best lead single would have been. So it is not like there was one that stood out like a Beautiful Day or Vertigo on prior albums. Would more promotion have made a difference? Miminal at best. The band was all over the BBC, morning and late night American television and elsewhere. The BBC was even criticised for the amount of coverage. Would a different tour have made a difference? Obviously not considering the attendance. NLOTH could only be viewed as a failure through subjective takes on the album quality and how the songs were when played live.
 
NLOTH was not a failure. NLOTH was actually a reality check, which the band has ignored. The total sales of the top albums when Bomb was released were drastically different from those when NLOTH was. The music industry has changed yet the band's expectations have not. Having a top five album at the end of the year cannot be considered a failure. The album's overall sales should knock home the reality of today's music industry to the band not disappoint them.

Would a different lead single have made a difference? Maybe slightly. I have seen no major majority on this site as to what the best lead single would have been. So it is not like there was one that stood out like a Beautiful Day or Vertigo on prior albums. Would more promotion have made a difference? Miminal at best. The band was all over the BBC, morning and late night American television and elsewhere. The BBC was even criticised for the amount of coverage. Would a different tour have made a difference? Obviously not considering the attendance. NLOTH could only be viewed as a failure through subjective takes on the album quality and how the songs were when played live.

+1 :up: I think when U2 were shoveling sidewalks at Letterman they said that "people aren't buying records anymore".

The industry has to find a way to gain interest via internet and so far nobody has been able to figure it out how to translate that into album sales. Some kind of monthly fee site to download albums with heavy blocking of free torrent sites seems to be the current strategy. As long as music can be downloaded for free there will be low record sales. Enhanced content won't change anything if it also can be shared freely. Sorry for sounding like McGuinne$$ but sales won't increase if they have to compete with free. :D
 
I don't take anything Lillywhite says remotely seriously. It's just a shame that U2 seem to think differently.
 
Answer:



So either all their 80's stuff sounds the same, or BD has some hell of a quilt-work sound.

Ok beautiful day had a classic 80's sound. What I mean was anyone who asked what U2 sound like from the 80's then the normal guy in the street would evoke that sound that Edge used on Beautiful Day. Its a 'typical' U2 song. I didn't say it was a bad song. But it is a typical U2 sounding song with the classic coke riff.
 
I don't think anyone argued that "everything sounded the same in the 80s". The poster was simply suggesting that parts of "Beautiful Day" harken back to a certain sound of 80s' U2, something that the band themselves seem to have agreed with.

Your posts pretty much hit the nail on the head in what I was trying to say.
 
But yeah, there is a reason why he is a very successful producer (and U2 are very successful artists) and you are not. :wink:

:up:

I do understand that message boards are there to promote discussion, and criticism is part of that, as well as praise. But I often find myself reading threads and laughing to myself, wondering how many of the critical posters have written/produced/recorded albums that have sold multi-millions, or have managed successful bands, or created crowd pleasing setlists, etc. :)
 
Ok beautiful day had a classic 80's sound. What I mean was anyone who asked what U2 sound like from the 80's then the normal guy in the street would evoke that sound that Edge used on Beautiful Day. Its a 'typical' U2 song. I didn't say it was a bad song. But it is a typical U2 sounding song with the classic coke riff.

Yeah, but this is still a pretty limited description.

I would say BD had Edge approaching the guitar the same way he did in the 80's, but by no means a rehash or the description you used earlier.

I mean, just use common sense; even if Edge had "rehashed" an 80's sound how would that have been catering to the 2000 "pop" crowd? It had been a decade, the 80's audience had grown up, they either continued to follow U2 or they ditched them and grown up, they are no longer the "pop" crowd.

Your use of rehashed U2 slogans is quite entertaining though.
 
Steve Lillywhite seeks Irish Times retraction

Hot Press, October 05, 2010

U2 producer Steve Lillywhite has accused The Irish Times of misquoting him, in the headline on an article which appeared in the run-up to his appearance at The Music Show.

The news story was headlined "Producer admits last U2 album was a failure" – but the man who produced Boy, October and War, and later co-produced both How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb and No Line On The Horizon for the band, with Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois, insists that this is not what he said.

"I never called U2 a failure," he told the audience at the panel `Are Producers The Real Stars?', where he appeared alongside Van Morrison and Waterboys producer Mick Glossop and Julie Feeney.

"It was said that I said No Line On The Horizon was a failure. That is a complete misquote, I never said the word `failure' to that journalist."

In fact the words do not appear in quotes in the article and so the headline – presumably tagged on during production – is totally unrepresentative of what was written by Irish Times reporter, Ronan McGreevy.

"I just wanted to clarify what I said (here)," Lillywhite continued. "I was saying that with albums like The Joshua Tree, which is set in the desert, the album and the sound invokes this mood as a whole, you just feel it. I just said that I didn't think No Line On The Horizon did that as well. It was meant to invoke the whole feel of north Africa, of Morocco, and I didn't think that was achieved as well as on other albums, where the atmosphere hits you. I would never call any of U2's work a failure, and I did not."

A sub-headline on the news story says that the album sold only "a fraction" of previous albums, by which one would normally understand that sales were well down on previous efforts. In fact the record has gone to No. 1 in at least 14 countries. outperforming even Achtung Baby. Its sales of over 5 million copies, against the 9 million sold by its predecessor How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb have to be seen in the wider context of shrinking record sales – and so represent a relatively good result for the band in a diminishing market.

Lillywhite is currently seeking a retraction from the newspaper.

"You'd expect better of The Irish Times," he said afterwards. "They're supposed to be a newspaper of record."
 
The "Armchair Producer" argument holds no water to me. I also can't throw a football at a professional level, but if Donovan McNabb has a bad game, as a Redskins fan, I have the right to say so. Just because I haven't done it, doesn't mean I don't know the knowledge available to critique it.

Music is an art form and professional musicians make music for public consumption. So if I hear a record and I don't like it, I'm supposed to say "Well, I don't like the way this album sounds, but the producer's made a hit before, so I must be wrong"?
 
Back
Top Bottom