Eno interview about Moment of Surrender?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

Y2K

Refugee
Joined
Jun 13, 2005
Messages
1,320
Location
Pittsburgh, PA
Does anyone have a link to the video that used to be freely available on U2.com, in which Brian Eno is interviewed for like 5-6 minutes just about "Moment of Surrender"?
 
Yes. That video was freely available and now it asks you for your subscriber login. And I'm not a subscriber.
 
Does anyone have a link to the video that used to be freely available on U2.com, in which Brian Eno is interviewed for like 5-6 minutes just about "Moment of Surrender"?
It's fantastic -- even better than the song. I think he does another one about Magnificent. He has a wonderful way of expressing himself.

Edit: Oh, sorry. I didn't realize you were asking for a link.
 
One of those links should work out fine. I'll try them once I'm on my home computer. Thanks! :)
 
If it wasn't recorded in the 90's it's not cool...

Have you not learned yet?

I don't think U2 fans are quite as idiotic as you think they are. Firstly, I would be surprised if they like Please, Mofo and Lemon etc simply because they were recorded in the 1990s. Rather, I suspect it is because they were interesting songs with great lyrics, which took U2 into a different territory. Secondly and relatedly, (for me at least) there are profound diferences between their 90s work and what followed. It is not simply a question of chronology. I know Bono likes to remind us that BD starts with a drum machine and that LAPOE bounces off crazy synth work but for some fans on here, their post-milennial stuff did mark a change, and not neccesarily one for the better. To simply dismiss those views as superficial risks appearing rather patronising.
 
I don't think U2 fans are quite as idiotic as you think they are. Firstly, I would be surprised if they like Please, Mofo and Lemon etc simply because they were recorded in the 1990s. Rather, I suspect it is because they were interesting songs with great lyrics, which took U2 into a different territory. Secondly and relatedly, (for me at least) there are profound diferences between their 90s work and what followed. It is not simply a question of chronology. I know Bono likes to remind us that BD starts with a drum machine and that LAPOE bounces off crazy synth work but for some fans on here, their post-milennial stuff did mark a change, and not neccesarily one for the better. To simply dismiss those views as superficial risks appearing rather patronising.

Then there are those of us who think that NLOTH is an excellent break from ATYLCB and the utter disaster of Bomb, putting U2 back into the territory that they were in for AB->Zooropa->Pax->Pop. But there are also many people who absolutely refuse to believe that U2 can create anything as good now as they did in the 80s and 90s, and damn anything that U2 create before they even create it.
 
I don't think U2 fans are quite as idiotic as you think they are. Firstly, I would be surprised if they like Please, Mofo and Lemon etc simply because they were recorded in the 1990s. Rather, I suspect it is because they were interesting songs with great lyrics, which took U2 into a different territory. Secondly and relatedly, (for me at least) there are profound diferences between their 90s work and what followed. It is not simply a question of chronology. I know Bono likes to remind us that BD starts with a drum machine and that LAPOE bounces off crazy synth work but for some fans on here, their post-milennial stuff did mark a change, and not neccesarily one for the better. To simply dismiss those views as superficial risks appearing rather patronising.

It's one thing to admit that ATYCLB and HTDAAB had their problems. But I think that a lot people feel that those who lump NLOTH in with them are usually doing so for knee-jerk reasons and not because of the quality of the work. I certainly feel this way.
 
It's one thing to admit that ATYCLB and HTDAAB had their problems. But I think that a lot people feel that those who lump NLOTH in with them are usually doing so for knee-jerk reasons and not because of the quality of the work. I certainly feel this way.

Well you have a point, yes. I like NLOTH as it happens but for some fans, the record did not match the hype. They were promised an experimental record but it didn't quite turn out like that. Yes, it is more experimental than the last two albums, but it it wasn't exactly an AB-style transition people were predicting.
 
Then there are those of us who think that NLOTH is an excellent break from ATYLCB and the utter disaster of Bomb, putting U2 back into the territory that they were in for AB->Zooropa->Pax->Pop. But there are also many people who absolutely refuse to believe that U2 can create anything as good now as they did in the 80s and 90s, and damn anything that U2 create before they even create it.

Well again, that's a fair point and I agree that NLOTH is a step in the right direction. But was NLOTH a decisive enough break? I think it is a great album but I can understand why some people were a little disappointed by the caution U2 showed.
 
Back
Top Bottom