Daniel Lanois weighs in on SOI/Apple

[Nick66]

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.

SOI was certainly created by U2 "on their terms"...unless you're suggesting Apple interfered with the creative process (unlikely and probably impossible considering how late the deal came together). U2 can do something on their own terms and it still result in a compromised product. But that's because it's a compromise the band as a collective chose to make. No one else. I don't care if Edge, Adam and Larry all wanted one thing and Bono wanted another. As long as it's U2's decision, and not of any outsider, it's on their own terms. However they may go about their decision making and creative process.

But whatever their compromises are, it's not because a record company or some other outside force dictated artistic terms to U2, or interfered with the creative process. That's what it means to do something on your own terms. In that way, U2 is in a position that few bands are. If U2's art is being compromised, it's because U2, and no one else, is compromising it. If U2 chooses to make a different record than they'd otherwise make absent commercial considerations, that's on their terms because those commercial considerations are important to them. When they bowed to the advice Iovine and apparently made changes to NLOTH at the last minute because they were worried it wouldn't get play, that was U2's choice, on their own terms. Iovine couldn't force terms on U2.

Again, if some outside entity forced U2 to compromise their art for commerce, that would be something different. But that's not a position U2 has been in for quite some time.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

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.

They're ego driven. When the ego is hurt, they're thrown for a loop.

 

[Marko]

SOI was certainly created by U2 "on their terms"...unless you're suggesting Apple interfered with the creative process (unlikely and probably impossible considering how late the deal came together). U2 can do something on their own terms and it still result in a compromised product. But that's because it's a compromise the band as a collective chose to make. No one else. I don't care if Edge, Adam and Larry all wanted one thing and Bono wanted another. As long as it's U2's decision, and not of any outsider, it's on their own terms. However they may go about their decision making and creative process.

But whatever their compromises are, it's not because a record company or some other outside force dictated artistic terms to U2, or interfered with the creative process. That's what it means to do something on your own terms. In that way, U2 is in a position that few bands are. If U2's art is being compromised, it's because U2, and no one else, is compromising it. If U2 chooses to make a different record than they'd otherwise make absent commercial considerations, that's on their terms because those commercial considerations are important to them. When they bowed to the advice Iovine and apparently made changes to NLOTH at the last minute because they were worried it wouldn't get play, that was U2's choice, on their own terms. Iovine couldn't force terms on U2.

Again, if some outside entity forced U2 to compromise their art for commerce, that would be something different. But that's not a position U2 has been in for quite some time.

I always get a bad feeling when bono talks about Jimmy Iovine makong them go back to the drawing board when they were almost done with dm's version of the album.
Yes, decision was up to them, but they took that to hart after being so enthousiastic about the music they made beforehand (at least larry said they were happy and thought that this album will be done quickly)

 

[Irvine511]

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.

The difference, though, is that no one wanted the "old" U2 in 1990. They still gave the fans, and the general public, exactly what they wanted: they killed the old band and started anew. And still played the warhorses on Zoo TV.

 

[LemonMelon]

And still played the warhorses on Zoo TV.

That's not a great example, considering they opened up every show with half a dozen songs from the new record and played 8-10 from it every night. They absolutely pushed the new sound and direction hard onto an audience that may not have wanted it.

But I do get what you're saying. They painted themselves into a corner and had their egos bruised by the critical backlash of R&H (this is very problematic for them, as Headache mentioned above). They didn't have much choice but to start over if they wished to remain creatively relevant.

 

[Irvine511]

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.

I agree they have changed. I think I they aren't as good. But I also think they are still quite good, and I want to hear more. I can understand why people prefer 20th century U2. I do too, mostly, but I also don't have the same withering contempt that some people have for the 21st century U2, or think they are nothing more than song-and-dance men at this point. Lots of good stuff has happened since 2000, and it's obvious that, while one might not like their direction, they are doing things on their terms and with great care and craft. We can dislike the end product, but I don't think it's fair for some (not you, this is a broad comment) to think that they are doing anything other than exactly what they want to do. Or that they are doing it only for the money.

 

[Nick66]

This may belong more in the "unpopular U2 opinions" thread, but I sort of have a different take on what they've been doing. The conventional wisdom seems to be that U2 is trying to hard to make radio friendly records, painfully so, and if they'd only go back to the way they used to do things (whatever that was), without trying so hard, they'd stumble onto greatness again.

And I agree with this as far as it goes, and whatever it is they're doing now isn't working as well. It's clearly different than what they were doing before, and the results bear that out. But I basically think it's because they can't do things any differently. Whatever creative that forces drove them to produce records like The Joshua Tree and Achtung baby are now largely gone. They're just not as good as they used to be, it's as simple as that. Their method changed because they didn't have any choice...they're "trying so hard" because whatever it is that came more easily before just isn't coming now. The muse isn't there. It happens.

They're like a boxer that went a long way on pure passion, strength and ambition. As he gets older, he has to rely more on technique, and if he really wasn't that good at technique to begin with, it's going to show. Whatever magic these guys were able to conjure in the recording studio that allowed them to be so much more than the sum of their parts for so long doesn't show up quite as much, God is busy walking into Adele's studio, and what you're left with are three average musicians and Bono.

They didn't sacrifice the great for the good. The great left them, and despite occasional flashes of greatness, good is the best they can do. And after all they've given us, what's so wrong with that? Good U2 is still better than no U2.

 

[Irvine511]

That's not a great example, considering they opened up every show with half a dozen songs from the new record and played 8-10 from it every night. They absolutely pushed the new sound and direction hard onto an audience that may not have wanted it.

But I do get what you're saying. They painted themselves into a corner and had their egos bruised by the critical backlash of R&H (this is very problematic for them, as Headache mentioned above). They didn't have much choice but to start over if they wished to remain creatively relevant.

Yes. Agreed. And that's the ony tour they ever did that on. They were able to do that because the quality on AB is unbelievably high, and it sold well and had a rash of hot singles, including perhaps their most universally beloved song. But they still closed out the main set with Streets and Pride -- they only pretended to kill the old band. Because everyone loves that stuff, whether they want to admit it or not

 

[Irvine511]

This may belong more in the "unpopular U2 opinions" thread, but I sort of have a different take on what they've been doing. The conventional wisdom seems to be that U2 is trying to hard to make radio friendly records, painfully so, and if they'd only go back to the way they used to do things (whatever that was), without trying so hard, they'd stumble onto greatness again.

And I agree with this as far as it goes, and whatever it is they're doing now isn't working as well. It's clearly different than what they were doing before, and the results bear that out. But I basically think it's because they can't do things any differently. Whatever creative that forces drove them to produce records like The Joshua Tree and Achtung baby are now largely gone. They're just not as good as they used to be, it's as simple as that. Their method changed because they didn't have any choice...they're "trying so hard" because whatever it is that came more easily before just isn't coming now. It happens.

They're like a boxer that went a long way on pure passion, strength and ambition. As he gets older, he has to rely more on technique, and if he really wasn't that good at technique to begin with, it's going to show. Whatever magic these guys were able to conjure in the recording studio that allowed them to be so much more than the sum of their parts doesn't show up quite as much, God is busy walking into Adele's studio, and what you're left with are three average musicians and Bono.

They didn't sacrifice the great for the good. The great left them, and despite occasional flashes of greatness, good is the best they can do. And after all they've given us, what's so wrong with that? Good U2 is still better than no U2.

I basically agree with this.

Men in their 50s aren't going to create the future of rock. But they can offer up 35 years of craft and experience. And I, personally, love craft. I love a perfectly crafted, ruthless pop song by anyone, from Taylor Swift back to The Beatles. So I probably derive more pleasure from 21st century U2 than a lot of hard core fans who are more into mood or vibe or whatever. I like craft, I like power, I like the visceral, and I like the soar Bono can still conjur up from the depths.

 

[BVS]

I always get a bad feeling when bono talks about Jimmy Iovine makong them go back to the drawing board when they were almost done with dm's version of the album.
Yes, decision was up to them, but they took that to hart after being so enthousiastic about the music they made beforehand (at least larry said they were happy and thought that this album will be done quickly)

Jimmy did this with NLOTH or maybe Bomb and said there were no hits, but the story was different this time. They weren't almost done and it was Jimmy that gave Bono the idea to dig deep into what it was like at the beginning of their career when their lives were changing.


Sent from my iPhone using U2 Interference

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

This may belong more in the "unpopular U2 opinions" thread, but I sort of have a different take on what they've been doing. The conventional wisdom seems to be that U2 is trying to hard to make radio friendly records, painfully so, and if they'd only go back to the way they used to do things (whatever that was), without trying so hard, they'd stumble onto greatness again.

And I agree with this as far as it goes, and whatever it is they're doing now isn't working as well. It's clearly different than what they were doing before, and the results bear that out. But I basically think it's because they can't do things any differently. Whatever creative that forces drove them to produce records like The Joshua Tree and Achtung baby are now largely gone. They're just not as good as they used to be, it's as simple as that. Their method changed because they didn't have any choice...they're "trying so hard" because whatever it is that came more easily before just isn't coming now. The muse isn't there. It happens.

They're like a boxer that went a long way on pure passion, strength and ambition. As he gets older, he has to rely more on technique, and if he really wasn't that good at technique to begin with, it's going to show. Whatever magic these guys were able to conjure in the recording studio that allowed them to be so much more than the sum of their parts for so long doesn't show up quite as much, God is busy walking into Adele's studio, and what you're left with are three average musicians and Bono.

They didn't sacrifice the great for the good. The great left them, and despite occasional flashes of greatness, good is the best they can do. And after all they've given us, what's so wrong with that? Good U2 is still better than no U2.

i can go with this... but i also think it's fair to say that they've reached a point where they're damned if they do and they're damned if they don't. their back catalog is so strong, and remained strong across three decades, that they've hit a point of no return.

U2 could record their greatest record tomorrow, and the majority of people in the world, fans included, would never put it over Achtung Baby or The Joshua Tree. Ever. Those albums are forever in the pantheon, and enough time has passed that 99.99% of people will never allow themselves to believe that those albums could possibly ever be eclipsed by anything they do.

Their toughest critic is their body of work.

 

[djerdap]

Songs of Innocence might have been the most obvious compromise yet. Third in a row, and third one wasn't a charm.

To call in the last hour - after the campaign for new material has already started with the infamous Invisible/Fallon stretch - people like Ryan Tedder and Paul Epworth to "polish" the songs from the first half... To me, it just reeks of desperation. Yes, it was a collective decision and it was done on their own terms. Which is not to say it didn't stem out of a place of devastating (musical) midlife-crisis insecurity that simply cannot leave them be.

That's not a great example, considering they opened up every show with half a dozen songs from the new record and played 8-10 from it every night. They absolutely pushed the new sound and direction hard onto an audience that may not have wanted it.

Not to mention that "warhorses" like New Year's Day and Sunday Bloody Sunday were not played on the first 2 legs, after which I Still Haven't Found got to be played more rarely (SBS was always in rotation). I Will Follow remained a rarity for the whole duration of the tour.

 

[Nick66]

U2 could record their greatest record tomorrow, and the majority of people in the world, fans included, would never put it over Achtung Baby or The Joshua Tree. Ever.

I agree. But it's really hard to say, because I don't think many people, whether it's a music critic, die hard fan or casual listener, would suggest anything U2 has put out in the past 15 years is superior JT or AB.

I think I try to be open minded. I have genuine excitement for every new U2 release, with the sincere hope that they will create something special again. And occasional they do put out something special. While they haven't created a record recently that matches what they did at the height of their creative powers, there are certainly songs, like MOS, that I think are just as good if not better than anything they did in the 80's or 90's. So at least as far as I'm concerned, there's not a knee jerk, pre-judged dismal of their recent work just because it's recent.

It's all pretty unfair actually, because in this music environment it's questionable whether JT or AB would really get noticed if they were released today. It's just a different world. I'll say this for U2...their stuff holds up in a way that a lot of stuff put out today that's infinitely popular probably won't. But what do I know, that's the way it is with each generation of music fans. Someone who grew up with the Beatles and the Stones were probably saying the same thing about U2 in 1992.

The only thing we can say for sure that absolutely is better today than it was back in the day is TV.

 

[Kieran McConville]

If U2 were coming up right now, they'd be Arcade Fire (status-wise). That's as good as it gets. It isn't nothing, but... whatever. Nobody will remember the sales stats 500 years from now (when of course, yeah, whatever).

 

[Nick66]

If U2 were coming up right now, they'd be Arcade Fire (status-wise). That's as good as it gets.

Hate to use the "C" word, but I think they'd probably be more in line with Coldplay than Arcade Fire. I don't think anyone could ever confuse U2 with a hipster band.

 

[Kieran McConville]

Well... ok.

I wasn't really thinking hipster when I wrote that. Arcade Fire are the closest contemporary analogue I can think of. Win Butler wants to be the biggest band on earth, he's hardly a hipster. Just not quite up to the (futile) task.

 

[mama cass]

They're like a boxer that went a long way on pure passion, strength and ambition. As he gets older, he has to rely more on technique, and if he really wasn't that good at technique to begin with, it's going to show. Whatever magic these guys were able to conjure in the recording studio that allowed them to be so much more than the sum of their parts for so long doesn't show up quite as much, God is busy walking into Adele's studio, and what you're left with are three average musicians and Bono.

They didn't sacrifice the great for the good. The great left them, and despite occasional flashes of greatness, good is the best they can do. And after all they've given us, what's so wrong with that? Good U2 is still better than no U2.

i think it comes down to personal preferences really... the new album is pretty magic to me, and i love the songs and think they're really strong still after all these months - my first impressions have stayed with me... (and i can be a pretty harsh critic, re. NLOTH and Bomb for instance)

i think "technique" can be overrated personally - technically brilliant musicians are ten a penny and their music can seriously be dull as arse

a band needs chemistry and magic, and i think U2 still has this after all these years

and Headache is right, they're competing with their own back catalogue, which is quite a legacy!

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Well... ok.

I wasn't really thinking hipster when I wrote that. Arcade Fire are the closest contemporary analogue I can think of. Win Butler wants to be the biggest band on earth, he's hardly a hipster. Just not quite up to the (futile) task.

More of a fucking hoopster

 

[Kieran McConville]

More of a prick, amiright?

 

[thavidesco]

I always get a bad feeling when bono talks about Jimmy Iovine makong them go back to the drawing board when they were almost done with dm's version of the album.
Yes, decision was up to them, but they took that to hart after being so enthousiastic about the music they made beforehand (at least larry said they were happy and thought that this album will be done quickly)

We don´t know how it would be without Iovine´s intervence. If a note by him made the band to revise their work, they certainly weren´t fully satisfied with it. But I believe it made the album more authentic and generally stronger. Probably. For me, if we throw away Miracle and Cedarwood and put Invisible and Ordinary love instead, the album is in the top 3 with JT and Achtung. So for me, nothing to complain.

It is also a proof that the band is able to do music that is authentic and challenging after all those years. That was the biggest surprise. It also indicates how much 3 previous records were influenced by compromises and self insecurity. This time they really went for it. And they still have it!

 

[Nick66]

I could be wrong, but weren't the stories about them taking Iovine's advice about NLOTH? Is there a suggestion that the same happened with SOI?

 

[Hollow Island]

Good U2 is better than great "pretty much everyone else." SOI is good U2, but it's still one of the best records of last year in any genre.

 

[jphelmet]

i can go with this... but i also think it's fair to say that they've reached a point where they're damned if they do and they're damned if they don't. their back catalog is so strong, and remained strong across three decades, that they've hit a point of no return.

U2 could record their greatest record tomorrow, and the majority of people in the world, fans included, would never put it over Achtung Baby or The Joshua Tree. Ever. Those albums are forever in the pantheon, and enough time has passed that 99.99% of people will never allow themselves to believe that those albums could possibly ever be eclipsed by anything they do.

Their toughest critic is their body of work.

This is true of all bands with any longevity. Add to it, you have lived with the older albums and have so much life / memories invested with it. You are battling not only your past greatness, but all years of life those albums have been the soundtrack for.

I love AB & JT because they are great albums and because they are tied to so many wonderful memories throughout my entire adult life.

 

[trevgreg]

This is true of all bands with any longevity. Add to it, you have lived with the older albums and have so much life / memories invested with it. You are battling not only your past greatness, but all years of life those albums have been the soundtrack for.

I love AB & JT because they are great albums and because they are tied to so many wonderful memories throughout my entire adult life.

 

[U2girl]

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.

To stear away from the tired old "Larry and the 3 lemmings" argument...the changed on SOI didn't come from Larry - of all members in U2, seriously ? - wanting to hear U2 tunes in the pub. It came from Iovine, a studio suit, suggesting a lyrical theme to Bono. How's that for artistic integrity and following your instict ?

The only real win Larry had - with Adam, but he gets a free pass for some reason - was on Bomb. Based on the early versions of Vertigo, ABOY (minus the better lyric), Sometimes, Yahweh and Fast cars - I don't think the rhythm section was wrong.

If going forward is needed, look no further than the guitar player's ongoing midlife crisis. No real U2 reinvention ever happened unless Edge was inspired. Not even Eno and Lanois can change that.

Give the (most possible) people what they want is a pointless excuse for the haters of the last 15 years or so. They've had 3 different eras with 3 different sounds. There's no telling what the audience wants, since every single post Vertigo pretty much tanked in the US. And the older they get the harder it will be.

 

[popacrobat]

Good U2 is better than great "pretty much everyone else." SOI is good U2, but it's still one of the best records of last year in any genre.

Yeah, I'm of this opinion too.

As for SOI, I said it before the album came out and I'll say it again -- U2's best years are behind them, and they're not coming back. Are they capable of making excellent music still? Of course. Am I expecting anything to rival The Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby? Of course not.

What do I want? I just want good songs at this point. SOI has plenty of very good if not great songs. Is it as good as good an album as Pop, Achtung, Joshua Tree or Unforgettable Fire? No, it's not.

But there are some damn good songs on there, and good U2 is still great music. They have moments of great U2 on SOI to me anyway.

There's nothing risky about SOI, and I'm ok with that. I'm not expecting them to reinvent the wheel at this point.

 

[thavidesco]

Yeah, I'm of this opinion too.

As for SOI, I said it before the album came out and I'll say it again -- U2's best years are behind them, and they're not coming back. Are they capable of making excellent music still? Of course. Am I expecting anything to rival The Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby? Of course not.

Not as good as Pop? Fortunately not When was the last time you´ve listened to Playboy Mansion, Miami, MOFO studio version? The album just doesn´t work. Even the songs are not as good as they thought.

Even parts of JT are problematic. Some songs sounds very unfinished. Bullet, Exit, Mothers.

I say replace Miracle and Cedarwood with Invisible and Ordinary Love and you have a mastepiece album.

 

[thavidesco]

The only real win Larry had - with Adam, but he gets a free pass for some reason - was on Bomb. Based on the early versions of Vertigo, ABOY (minus the better lyric), Sometimes, Yahweh and Fast cars - I don't think the rhythm section was wrong.

Yes, they were right

 

[ozeeko]

Not as good as Pop? Fortunately not When was the last time you´ve listened to Playboy Mansion, Miami, MOFO studio version? The album just doesn´t work. Even the songs are not as good as they thought.

Even parts of JT are problematic. Some songs sounds very unfinished. Bullet, Exit, Mothers.

I say replace Miracle and Cedarwood with Invisible and Ordinary Love and you have a mastepiece album.

Give it a year or two. See what happens.

 

[LemonMelon]

I listen to Pop all the way through about as often as any other U2 album. There are some less than great tracks, but there's enough of a soul-searching lyrical thread carrying through the record to make it feel complete despite some musical inconsistencies.

Ordinary Love would never be part of a U2 masterpiece. It's not bad, but there's no energy in it at all. I don't miss it. Leaving Invisible off was a poor choice.