Daniel Lanois weighs in on SOI/Apple

[Nick66]

On the contrary ATYCLB was a safe record for the radios to please the pop kids, which is the worst approach you can have as an artist.

Once again, you never fail to be completely wrong in your wrongy wrongness.

How is creating a record that was an overwhelming critical and commercial success, that appealed to both die hard fans and casuals alike, created an entire new generation of fans, kicked off what is regarded as one of their most successful and memorable tours, won 7 Grammy awards, produced one of their most beloved and successful singles, and cemented the bands legacy represent the "worst approach you can have as an artist". Sounds like it worked out pretty well to me from just about any angle you look at it, whether you personally like the record or not.

I'll also add that it pulled the neat trick of, as Headache mentioned, not only sounding nothing like what was on the radio at that time but actually getting played on the radio alongside the songs it sounded nothing like. Not to mention that, despite the oft-repeated fallacy that it's U2 returning to their comfort zone, etc., ATYCLB actually sounds very little like anything U2 had done before. The distance between the sound on ATYCLB and Pop, or ATYCLB and Joshua Tree, is much greater than that between Pop and Zooropoa or Achtung Baby.

If there's no ATYCLB and Beautiful Day, U2 is a band that fizzled out in the late 90's...and, not for nothing, certainly would not be a band Apple would want to have anything to do with.

 

[david]

Yep, ATYCLB did not sound like anything else at the time of release in late 2000. U2's competition at that time was nu metal, borecore bands (Staind, Creed, etc), "the" bands, and the fading late '90s boy bands and girl bands who were enjoying their last bit of popularity.

 

[ozeeko]

Nu metal U2. Now there's an era they missed out on.

 

[thavidesco]

Once again, you never fail to be completely wrong in your wrongy wrongness.

How is creating a record that was an overwhelming critical and commercial success, that appealed to both die hard fans and casuals alike, created an entire new generation of fans, kicked off what is regarded as one of their most successful and memorable tours, won 7 Grammy awards, produced one of their most beloved and successful singles, and cemented the bands legacy represent the "worst approach you can have as an artist". Sounds like it worked out pretty well to me from just about any angle you look at it, whether you personally like the record or not.

I'll also add that it pulled the neat trick of, as Headache mentioned, not only sounding nothing like what was on the radio at that time but actually getting played on the radio alongside the songs it sounded nothing like. Not to mention that, despite the oft-repeated fallacy that it's U2 returning to their comfort zone, etc., ATYCLB actually sounds very little like anything U2 had done before. The distance between the sound on ATYCLB and Pop, or ATYCLB and Joshua Tree, is much greater than that between Pop and Zooropoa or Achtung Baby.

If there's no ATYCLB and Beautiful Day, U2 is a band that fizzled out in the late 90's...and, not for nothing, certainly would not be a band Apple would want to have anything to do with.

I agree, the motto "back to the roots" was missinterpreted. They didn´t mean it was comeback to their certain style, but they wanted to make a record that is based on an approach 4 men in a room playing and the music comes. I agree the result sounded like nothing U2 has done before. But that is the end of positives for me.

The record sounds so calculated, done on the purpose, just to succeed for on the mainstream radios. The songs are good in their core, but it feels like there is no ambition to really go for something deeper or special. It´s like somebody cut their wings that would usually take them to the higher ground. They were too smart with that record.

 

[Mack_Again]

Nu metal U2. Now there's an era they missed out on.

The Edge probably started wearing had that said "geek" on it and start writing phrases on his guitars, right? And Bono started rapping and suddenly hate government.

Plus, the Edge suddenly began to make noises with guitars and we went, "......What?"

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

zomg Apple is inventing the already existing smart watch today, perhaps they'll include Songs of Experience with it!

 

[Hollow Island]

Once again, you never fail to be completely wrong in your wrongy wrongness.

How is creating a record that was an overwhelming critical and commercial success, that appealed to both die hard fans and casuals alike, created an entire new generation of fans, kicked off what is regarded as one of their most successful and memorable tours, won 7 Grammy awards, produced one of their most beloved and successful singles, and cemented the bands legacy represent the "worst approach you can have as an artist". Sounds like it worked out pretty well to me from just about any angle you look at it, whether you personally like the record or not.

He's not wrong in his assessment of their approach: they were working to make a commercial record for top 40 radio listeners. That is a poor approach for an artist to take.

You are commenting on the results of the approach, and you're accurate. But he's not wrong is identifying and criticizing the problems with that approach. It's usually a bad move for artists to be motivated by commercial considerations (see: NLOTH). The artistic success of ATYCLB was a fluke. They tried to repeat it with the next album and somehow managed to turn shit into music.

they wanted to make a record that is based on an approach 4 men in a room playing and the music comes. I agree the result sounded like nothing U2 has done before. But that is the end of positives for me.

That is possibly the most BS U2 party line of them all. That record does not sound like "4 men playing in a room." It's one of their more synthetic sounding records. Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[LemonMelon]

It really does sound extremely synthetic. I'm sure the songwriting came from a relatively organic space, but some of the production flourishes on BD, Stuck, Elevation and Walk On are painfully dated. Don't even get me started on Kite's synth strings.

Thankfully, the tour improved all of these tracks.

 

[Nick66]

He's not wrong in his assessment of their approach: they were working to make a commercial record for top 40 radio listeners.

Do you have any evidence that this is what U2 were attempting to do in the studio? Other than you suppose the results sound like "Top 40" radio?

The artistic success of ATYCLB was a fluke.

LOL. Um, no. The "artistic success" is because they worked at it and made a damn good album. Dismissing it as a "fluke" is diminishing them as artists. I think creating something that managed to succeed both artistically and commercially says a lot about their creative process then. Actually, simultaneous artistic and commercial success is something U2 managed to do for most of their career.

They tried to repeat it with the next album and somehow managed to turn shit into music.

If anything, Bomb is U2 on cruise control, and IMO is a significant step down from the previous record. ATYCLB sounded nothing like anything U2 had done before and was certainly a major departure from Pop. Bomb was essentially U2 trying to capture lighting in a bottle twice and coming up with pretty mediocre results. To their credit, they tried something new with (the dramatically better) NLOTH.

 

[david]

The lackadaisical approach to Bomb's cover photo perfectly sums up the musical content as well.

 

[Hollow Island]

1. The evidence lies in their stated desire to recapture the commercial mantle after being disappointed in the performance of Pop. They felt that they went too far out, and they wanted to make more accessible music that would dominate the radio. They were driven by the market.

2. Are you saying that they did not work at Bomb and NLOTH and that's why they're poor albums? It's rare for art to be any good if it's being made to placate the market. Which is what U2 did in the 00s. You may disagree with the premise that that's what U2 did with ATYCLB.

3. ATYCLB was unique in the U2 catalog. It's good record. Bomb was U2 trying to make another market-driven record, and it worked. It was a successful product, but bad art.

 

[Nick66]

1. The evidence lies in their stated desire to recapture the commercial mantle after being disappointed in the performance of Pop. They felt that they went too far out, and they wanted to make more accessible music that would dominate the radio. They were driven by the market.

I agree that they wanted to be successful again. I believe they wanted to be commercially successful with Pop (and there's evidence to back that up as well). I believe U2 always wants to be commercially successful. This isn't Radiohead. What I take issue with is the characterisation that they were doing nothing more than trying to get on "Top 40" radio. I think there's a kind of prevailing myth believed by some that Pop is the kind of music U2 really wants to make, and albums like ATYLCB are some kind of artistic compromise. That's what I see no evidence of.

2. Are you saying that they did not work at Bomb and NLOTH and that's why they're poor albums? It's rare for art to be any good if it's being made to placate the market. Which is what U2 did in the 00s. You may disagree with the premise that that's what U2 did with ATYCLB.

Well, for one I don't think NLOTH is a poor album. I think it's a good album with some poor songs on it. And I believe Bomb is a poor album some good songs on it. But in any event, my problem with Bomb is that they tried to replicate what they did with ATYCLB, but made a poor copy. With NLOTH they tried something different...and yes, it appears may have let commercial considerations compromise what could have been a very special record. But U2 ALWAYS considers whether a record will be played on the radio...including with Pop.

3. ATYCLB was unique in the U2 catalog. It's good record. Bomb was U2 trying to make another market-driven record, and it worked. It was a successful product, but bad art.

I agree ATYCLB is a good record, but I don't find it "unique" in their catalogue. They set out to make something they were proud of as artists but that would also be commercially successful. Just as they did with every other record until then.

I agree that Bomb was a successful piece of bad art, but it's with Bomb that I think U2 started to lose the balance between the art and the commerce they had until then more or less managed quite well. IMO they made compromises to the art with Bomb and (the far superior) NLOTH that they generally hadn't up to that point.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

The biggest flawed thinking on these boards is the idea that U2 have ever made a major move without the eye on being as big as is fucking possible.

Everything they've done has had it's eye on this. There is no difference in mindset between the shift from Rattle and Hum to Achtung Baby and the shift from Pop to All That You Can't Leave Behind. Branding Original Soundtracks as a side project, going ethereal, the iPod, the tours, the bringing in different producers at the last second to change things up, the giant clusterfuck iTunes release, even the crisis around religion during October... they're all coming from the same state of mind; to be big as fuck. The only thing that's changed is that they've gotten more obvious and desperate as they've gotten older.

 

[Hollow Island]

I agree that they wanted to be successful again. I believe they wanted to be commercially successful with Pop (and there's evidence to back that up as well). I believe U2 always wants to be commercially successful. This isn't Radiohead. What I take issue with is the characterisation that they were doing nothing more than trying to get on "Top 40" radio. I think there's a kind of prevailing myth believed by some that Pop is the kind of music U2 really wants to make, and albums like ATYLCB are some kind of artistic compromise. That's what I see no evidence of.

Of course they wanted Pop to be commercially successful. They always want that. The difference is that in the 00s they seemed to be pandering. The music and lyrics became a lot simpler and one dimensional. They always wanted commercial success, but with ATYCLB and the subsequnt record they stopped trying to get it on their terms.

Well, for one I don't think NLOTH is a poor album. I think it's a good album with some poor songs on it. And I believe Bomb is a poor album some good songs on it. But in any event, my problem with Bomb is that they tried to replicated what they did with ATYCLB, but made a poor copy. With NLOTH they tried something different...and yes, it appears may have let commercial considerations compromise what could have been a very special record. But U2 ALWAYS considers whether a record will be played on the radio...including with Pop.

I think that NLOTH is a terrible album with some great songs on it. It doesn't work as an album at all. That being said, I listened to it more than SOI because it's more interesting. My problem with Bomb is the same as yours: they tried to repeat the commercially successful formula. But I think they succeeded. It's obviously commercial in its goal; it only existed to be sold, and people bought it. U2 were a brand, not a band. They saw that the pandering worked and gambled that it would work again. They were right. They thought it would work a third time, and were wrong. U2 always wants their stuff on the radio, but they didn't try to craft things for the radio. It's not coincidental that the hits dried up when they started trying to write them. (ps in Canada, Pop was huge and had three hit singles).

I agree ATYCLB is a good record, but I don't find it "unique" in their catalogue. They set out to make something they were proud of as artists but that would also be commercially successful. Just as they did with every other record until then.

I agree that Bomb was a successful piece of bad art, but it's with Bomb that I think U2 started to lose the balance between the art and the commerce they had until then more or less managed quite well. IMO they made compromises to the art with Bomb and (the far superior) NLOTH that they generally hadn't up to that point.

ATYCLB was by far their poppiet, cleanest album up to that point. They'd never made a record like it. Had they not tried to repeat it I'd like it a lot more. But I do like it a lot. I don't think that record is a total sell out; I think it's desire to be a pleasing, breezy listen. They do love pop music. But I think that had Pop been as huge as they thought U2 would not have strove to recapture past commercial glories in such a classic U2 sounding way. They'd probably have continued to progress rather than retreat to familiar sounds and anthemic songwriting. And yes, I agree that the compromised with Bomb and No Line were a new thing for them. At least ATYCLB has thematic and sonic consistency. It's a proper album.

 

[Hollow Island]

The biggest flawed thinking on these boards is the idea that U2 have ever made a major move without the eye on being as big as is fucking possible.

Everything they've done has had it's eye on this. There is no difference in mindset between the shift from Rattle and Hum to Achtung Baby and the shift from Pop to All That You Can't Leave Behind. Branding Original Soundtracks as a side project, going ethereal, the iPod, the tours, the bringing in different producers at the last second to change things up, the giant clusterfuck iTunes release, even the crisis around religion during October... they're all coming from the same state of mind; to be big as fuck. The only thing that's changed is that they've gotten more obvious and desperate as they've gotten older.

I think they wanted to be as big as fuck because they thought they were the best. I think now they just want to be big because that's what their ego demands. The U2 of now would never release With or Without You as a lead single; they probably wouldn't release it at all because it doesn't sound like a hit.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I think they wanted to be as big as fuck because they thought they were the best. I think now they just want to be big because that's what their ego demands. The U2 of now would never release With or Without You as a lead single; they probably wouldn't release it at all because it doesn't sound like a hit.

The U2 of old also ensured that they released their most commercial, radio friendly song ever as the first single on their "artsy turn."

 

[DaveC]

The biggest flawed thinking on these boards is the idea that U2 have ever made a major move without the eye on being as big as is fucking possible.

Everything they've done has had it's eye on this. There is no difference in mindset between the shift from Rattle and Hum to Achtung Baby and the shift from Pop to All That You Can't Leave Behind. Branding Original Soundtracks as a side project, going ethereal, the iPod, the tours, the bringing in different producers at the last second to change things up, the giant clusterfuck iTunes release, even the crisis around religion during October... they're all coming from the same state of mind; to be big as fuck. The only thing that's changed is that they've gotten more obvious and desperate as they've gotten older.

To suggest otherwise is simply trying to ascribe deeper meaning when it really isn't there.

 

[Nick66]

The biggest flawed thinking on these boards is the idea that U2 have ever made a major move without the eye on being as big as is fucking possible.

Everything they've done has had it's eye on this. There is no difference in mindset between the shift from Rattle and Hum to Achtung Baby and the shift from Pop to All That You Can't Leave Behind. Branding Original Soundtracks as a side project, going ethereal, the iPod, the tours, the bringing in different producers at the last second to change things up, the giant clusterfuck iTunes release, even the crisis around religion during October... they're all coming from the same state of mind; to be big as fuck. The only thing that's changed is that they've gotten more obvious and desperate as they've gotten older.

I agree with all this, and have said so about a million times on this board. They've wanted to be the biggest band in the world since before Boy. And every album they've ever made (with the exception of Passengers) was designed to have massive commercial appeal. As you point out, they just used to be better at it.

For anyone who doubts this, check out this (really cool) fanzine interview with Bono from 1979. An excerpt:

“We want to sell records. We want to be big. Independent labels are all very well, but mostly they preach to the converted. We don’t want to be a cult.”

 

[Salome]

But I think that had Pop been as huge as they thought U2 would not have strove to recapture past commercial glories in such a classic U2 sounding way. They'd probably have continued to progress rather than retreat to familiar sounds and anthemic songwriting.

While I disagree with the entire sentiment behind this anyway, I think it's a bit weird to make this 'a U2 thing'. No other band (well, no other band that has more then 50 fans) would try to progress in a direction that is considered by their public (apart from Canada and Brazil apparently) as a failure.
For a band that has pretty much based its existence on trying to reach out to its audience it would be particularly ... let's call it "stubborn".

 

[djerdap]

Nobody sane would claim that U2 never wanted to make it big, have huge hits, conquer the universe etc.

The problem is with the approach and the methodology to get there, which has grown to be quite grotesque in the last 10 to 15 years.

 

[An Cat Gav]

The biggest flawed thinking on these boards is the idea that U2 have ever made a major move without the eye on being as big as is fucking possible.

Everything they've done has had it's eye on this. There is no difference in mindset between the shift from Rattle and Hum to Achtung Baby and the shift from Pop to All That You Can't Leave Behind. Branding Original Soundtracks as a side project, going ethereal, the iPod, the tours, the bringing in different producers at the last second to change things up, the giant clusterfuck iTunes release, even the crisis around religion during October... they're all coming from the same state of mind; to be big as fuck. The only thing that's changed is that they've gotten more obvious and desperate as they've gotten older.[/QUOT

Absolutely, Zooropa is seen as an example of U2 giving free rein to their artistic endeavours, but even with that album Bono wanted it to be like Sgt Pepper and have lots of hits as well.

 

[Kieran McConville]

U2 always wanted to be massive but there were times when, I think, they were prepared to flame out in the attempt if it couldn't be on their terms. To claim otherwise is to reduce them to a cash machine and nothing more. Maybe some fans would prefer it that way.

 

[Gonna Run 2 U]

To Danny's opinion that they should have just toured and played new songs live I wonder if they plan on doing this with some Songs Of Experience songs during the first leg leading up to it's release. Maybe a download code for those who attend the concerts?


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Hollow Island]

U2 always wanted to be massive but there were times when, I think, they were prepared to flame out in the attempt if it couldn't be on their terms. To claim otherwise is to reduce them to a cash machine and nothing more. Maybe some fans would prefer it that way.

Thank you, that's what I've been trying to say for years.

 

[Nick66]

U2 always wanted to be massive but there were times when, I think, they were prepared to flame out in the attempt if it couldn't be on their terms.

When was the last time you suppose U2 did anything that wasn't on "their terms"?

 

[LemonMelon]

I don't think anyone can strongarm U2 into doing anything. The problem (for me, I can't speak for anyone else) is that their songwriting instincts have changed such that "their terms" have become problematic to the recording process. Their way of doing things may align very well with what others want to hear, but I can't personally say so.

 

[U2DMfan]

Nobody sane would claim that U2 never wanted to make it big, have huge hits, conquer the universe etc.

The problem is with the approach and the methodology to get there, which has grown to be quite grotesque in the last 10 to 15 years.

Exactly right.

There is ambition and there is what you do to chase that ambition. Nothing wrong with having ambition. But there is a line that some people don't think credible artists should cross. U2 have unquestionably crossed it at this point. Some people don't care about such things...whatever floats your boat.

Modern U2 have catered to what would go down easiest with the most people. They are dictating to the fans (the bulk of the mainstream) rather than the other way around. They're trying to give the largest amount of fans possible what they want from U2. To sound as much like stereotypical U2 as possible. Right down to aping themselves more than ever on SOI. Pretty much the exact opposite approach of Acthung Baby or Zooropa.

 

[ozeeko]

As a songwriter, I can understand perhaps why U2 are dead set on coming up with good old'fashioned traditional songs these days. I've always felt my stuff is too out there, and I get envious of people who can just simply write "songs." It's natural to want to sound like someone else entirely, and to downgrade what many might actually love about your own original work.

 

[U2DMfan]

When was the last time you suppose U2 did anything that wasn't on "their terms"?

Semantics, really. U2 could sell 'Where The Streets Have No Name' to sell Big Macs for McDonalds and you could say it was on their terms. I think the spirit of that criticism refers, mostly, to how they are making music in terms of what they think will appeal to the most people vs making what they might ideally want - which wouldn't necessarily appeal to tons of people.

We have to consider that U2 are 4 different people with 4 different views and the end result is always a compromise. This band was different when they had 2 voices louder than the other two and it's as simple as that. You don't have to believe it's a negative but it is a turn, more or less admitted by the band...especially after (big shocker here...) POP and POPmart.

I don't think SOI, creatively, was entirely on their terms. In fact, I can document two different band members disagreeing publicly about the creative direction they were going to take on it while in the studio. U2 had no idea what direction they wanted to go in until the majority won the argument. Suddenly Bono's quiet ideas (SOA, busking, etc.) are voted down in favor of Larry (again) wanting to hear more U2 songs in his hometown pub.

The garden variety U2 apologist will always have the ability to say that whatever U2 does creatively is on their own terms, because they're out there readily 'selling' it to the world. But the bottom line is, in bands, these things are heavily compromised. One of Bono's many famous (to us, at least) slogans is 'there are no reverse gears on this tank". Proudly exclaiming that U2 are always pushing forward. SOI is a testament to that being total horseshit and it has been true since 2000. Give the (most possible) people what they want - and just act like you're not. That's U2's 21st Century M.O.

You don't make Numb (video or song) trying to have the biggest song that anybody has ever heard. You might want that to happen (I'm sure they did) but you aren't actively contriving to do it. And for 15 years, U2 has done nothing but actively contrive and it has affected the music. So yeah, they have the same ambitions...but that's about all that hasn't changed.

 

[U2DMfan]

As a songwriter, I can understand perhaps why U2 are dead set on coming up with good old'fashioned traditional songs these days. I've always felt my stuff is too out there, and I get envious of people who can just simply write "songs." It's natural to want to sound like someone else entirely, and to downgrade what many might actually love about your own original work.

I feel the same way as a songwriter. I totally get it.

I don't take issue with people that want to believe there is nothing wrong here. We all have our own preferences and tastes, etc. I take issue with people that default to this idea that U2 haven't changed. They only do that because it makes them easier to defend. They've definitely changed.