Eno / Rubin Comments in March issue of Q Mag

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
For all the crap the last two albums get for wanting to sound like the 80's U2 (which only really works for Bomb but that's another topic), the claims would be much more credible if the attitude worked both ways - something like Mercy or Fast cars is clearly U2 borrowing off their 90's self but it's all good as long as it's the RIGHT decade they're ripping off.


It would be nice if we stick to opinions rather than saying any album is "definitely" anything, especially since there are also "many, many" fans who like the last two albums.
 
Last edited:
It seems to me that most of the people who don't like the last two albums are those that seem to want U2 to stay in the "experimental band" box. The problem with that is that from day one U2 refuses to be boxed in. I have a problem with comparing U2 with other musicians because they are so totally different in their approach to music as well as their goals for their music. Those goals haven't changed since the very beginning.

Bono's letter to his father pre-1980:
"I hope our lives will be a testament to the people who follow us, and to the music business where never before have so many lost and sorrowful people gathered in one place pretending they're having a good time. It is our ambition to make more than good music."

U2's music from the very beginning has been about building community. Not by homogonizing but by accepting differences. "We are ONE but not the same" but "we get to carry each other" has been the message throughout. It is our privilege share our love with one another.

In my view U2 is still experimenting, but the experiment now has turned to less obvious things. From comments they have made about their focus on the last two albums what they are experimenting with now is what is contained within the "song" itself. And the latest comments have been talking about pure melody.

Most internet fans seem to want the band to stay "the biggest cult band in the world" but U2 don't want to be a cult band unless they can get the whole world into the cult that is. All this analyzing and itellectualizing about the music misses the point completely. U2 is an experience. It's not just about hearing the music or the words, it's about feeling it, opening yourself up to it, abandoning yourself to it so that it takes you on a journey. Where the music takes you depends on your own makeup and your own worldview. What U2 wants to do is tear down the barriers that hold you inside. What you do and where you go once the walls come down is up to you. As Bono says, "You give yourself away". I think that when you tear down walls and barriers between you and the world and give yourself to it, that rather than losing yourself, you can actually find your true self. If you are no longer defining yourself with the walls around you then your core self is expanded rather than crushed. It's all about opening yourself to love because giving love enriches you.

It says much about U2's global appeal that U218 is still in the Global top 40 (currently 26) while both the Oasis and the Beatles collections which came out at the same time have dropped of the chart. Sometimes I think that those for whom English is a second language tend to "get" U2 better than those of us who are primarily English speakers. Maybe we get to tied down to tearing apart the lyrics and spend less time experiencing them and the music.

As for the live performances, a U2 concert is never just about playing a bunch of songs. It is a carefully crafted experience, part concert, part opera, part theater, part social commentary but all meant to be lived rather than viewed. The audience is as much a part of the production as anything else.

For those of you who have not been touched by the last two albums, I am truly sorry. All I can say is that while I can agree that they maybe aren't scaling the same heights musically as JT and AB, when it comes to touching my heart and opening me up to the world it was HTDAAB that was the earthquake that split open my heart and ATYCLB the balm that healed it. I heard them in that order and the effect they have had on me emotionally can never be matched by the other albums. That being said I like ALL of U2's album and listen to all of them repeatedly, but they each hold a special but different place in my heart. I tend to chose according to my moods but the one that will always fit no matter how I feel is U218 because it seems to encompass the entire U2 emotional vocabulary. If the newer albums aren't speaking to you maybe you just don't need them anymore or yet. Just remember that there are billions of people in the world and just because you might not like it doesn't mean there aren't billions who do. You are certainly entitled to your opinions but not everyone will agree. We all have a knee jerk tendency to defend our positions but it is a lot harder to accept others views. The world needs to learn how to agree to disagree more.

Dana
 
rihannsu said:
...U2's music from the very beginning has been about building community....

All this analyzing and itellectualizing about the music misses the point completely. U2 is an experience. It's not just about hearing the music or the words, it's about feeling it, opening yourself up to it, abandoning yourself to it so that it takes you on a journey. Where the music takes you depends on your own makeup and your own worldview.

As for the live performances, a U2 concert is never just about playing a bunch of songs. It is a carefully crafted experience, part concert, part opera, part theater, part social commentary but all meant to be lived rather than viewed. The audience is as much a part of the production as anything else.


Dana

I hardly ever reply to anything in these forums anymore but I just had to pop out of lurkdom to compliment you for a concise, well written, heartfelt summary of U2's approach to creating music.

I'm planning on tucking this away for easy access when someone asks me why I love U2 so much. Thanks, Dana.
 
rihannsu said:
If the newer albums aren't speaking to you maybe you just don't need them anymore or yet.
Well said.
U2's music isn't meant to be the source of what you're looking for, anyway.
The purpose of U2's music is to point to the source (love/God).
If anyone is trying to get everything they need from just the music itself, then no wonder they're frustrated.
If you only listen to the music but don't want to listen to the source, then all you've got is a shiny disc with some pretty sounding noise on it...
 
Last edited:
I think what might(again, might) be some fans concerns is that both Zooropa and Pop were seen as mainstream "failures" in the US, but critical and cult successes. That tended to add a certain mystique to the band: "They don't care anymore about the mainstream. They're going to do what they want."

Then ATYCLB and HTDAAB era comes and you have folks like Paul McGuiness telling the press that what's important are the new fans from the younger generation, not the older ones. You have U2 on ipod spots. You have Greatest Hits packages. Comments about wanting to be the biggest band in the world.

And those last two albums have been commercial smashes.

I think that can lead some to thinking they're resting on their success and stepping back from the edge they skirted in the '90's.

But the songs themselves are not retreads(for the most part). They do sound like a band that has gone through the AB,Pop excursions and taken some of those sounds along for the ride.

The problem with a band in their position is: How do I stay relevant? Is that important? If not, then what keeps us in it.

Their last 2 albums have certainly had alot of great songs,IMHO, but they do sound more like summations of the band's musical travels of the last 10-15 years.

Not a criticism but an observation. They sound like U2 wrapping up alot of the music they've made the last decade or so.
 
Can we just merge every frickin' thread on this stupid site? If every fucking conversation is going to come back to "Pop sucks," "Pop's awesome," "ATYCLB/HTDAAB suck," "ATYCLB/HTDAAB are awesome," why do we bother making different threads?
 
Utoo said:
Can we just merge every frickin' thread on this stupid site? If every fucking conversation is going to come back to "Pop sucks," "Pop's awesome," "ATYCLB/HTDAAB suck," "ATYCLB/HTDAAB are awesome," why do we bother making different threads?

whats the difference between frickin' and fucking?
 
elevated_u2_fan said:


It's a PG to R rating...


Exactly. The threads themselves don't deserve a "fucking," but the conversations do. :wink:


[enter the "I know who deserves a fucking :flirt:" joke...]
 
Utoo said:
Can we just merge every frickin' thread on this stupid site? If every fucking conversation is going to come back to "Pop sucks," "Pop's awesome," "ATYCLB/HTDAAB suck," "ATYCLB/HTDAAB are awesome," why do we bother making different threads?

LIKE LOZLZ :crazy:
 
I don't really know how to respond to your post rihannsu, because I get what you're saying, but I don't necessarily agree.

To say I don't like the last two albums isn't true. I do like them a lot. ATYCLB is still one of my favorite albums. It has three of my favorite U2 songs on it. It's the album that got me into U2. It holds a very special place in my heart.

Bomb is a different story. It's good, yes, but not by U2 standards IMO. Now, you can say that it has a lot of heart and contemplate the deeper purpose of U2's music to try and justify anything U2 does, but in my mind the fact remains that the album is too safe. It's the sound of U2 resting on the safety of ATYCLB. They'll even admit that their goal is to be the biggest band in the world. Unfortunately in today's world, to do that you most likely can't break down walls, so to speak.

The state of popular music today isn't good. It's mostly about instant gratification. Remember when we heard the leaked video version of Vertigo and it had the cut near the end of the bridge that sounded like a record winding down? That was the original plan for the song but they had to cut it because they thought the average young radio listener couldn't handle that split second of silence in a song. Just a small example, but you get my point. Artistic integrity isn't of much value in the popular music scene today, but the popular music scene is exactly what U2 are aiming for.

Bono is always talking about how the band never wants to look back, but keep looking forward. They're a rock band, so of course they're saying they never want to look back musically. But what did they do with Bomb? The entire album was a look back. It wasn't daring in any way. It was a collection of sounds taken directly from their past albums with nothing new at all. The most creative song on the entire album was One Step Closer and they already had an album of songs like that called Passangers. The album broke down absolutely no walls musically. It didn't move the band forward in any way. We can talk about the band's goal of bringing us closer to God and getting us to love eachother all we want, and that's fine, but the main issue always has been and always will be the quality of the music. You're almost making it sound like U2 can do no wrong because of the intentions behind their songs.

I'm not saying U2 should be a certain way. I'm saying U2 should stick to what they say and move on. I've been hearing U2's music sounding exactly the same for the past seven years and I'm ready for the band to take a step forward. The reason this band is respected is because they weren't willing to play it safe in the past. They went through the biggest change I've ever seen any band go through with Achtung Baby. That was huge when you think about it. The most popular band in the world completely recreated themselves and it made them more respected than ever. It earned them respect. Not the respect an old, aging rocker who rambles on about love and world peace gets, but the respect that musical and artistic geniuse gets. The music was new and daring for the band, the lyrical style was new and poetic and it actually meant something. The band was busting down walls left and right.

That's not what U2 looks like today. I don't need them to go through another unbelievably huge change and redefine what kind of band they are, but I want to see them to keep busting down some walls. The heart of U2 will always be there, and I'll always love their message, but if they keep presnting their message the same way year after years I don't see why I should have much interest.
 
shart1780 said:
I don't really know how to respond to your post rihannsu, because I get what you're saying, but I don't necessarily agree.

To say I don't like the last two albums isn't true. I do like them a lot. ATYCLB is still one of my favorite albums. It has three of my favorite U2 songs on it. It's the album that got me into U2. It holds a very special place in my heart.

Bomb is a different story. It's good, yes, but not by U2 standards IMO. Now, you can say that it has a lot of heart and contemplate the deeper purpose of U2's music to try and justify anything U2 does, but in my mind the fact remains that the album is too safe. It's the sound of U2 resting on the safety of ATYCLB. They'll even admit that their goal is to be the biggest band in the world. Unfortunately in today's world, to do that you most likely can't break down walls, so to speak.

The state of popular music today isn't good. It's mostly about instant gratification. Remember when we heard the leaked video version of Vertigo and it had the cut near the end of the bridge that sounded like a record winding down? That was the original plan for the song but they had to cut it because they thought the average young radio listener couldn't handle that split second of silence in a song. Just a small example, but you get my point. Artistic integrity isn't of much value in the popular music scene today, but the popular music scene is exactly what U2 are aiming for.

Bono is always talking about how the band never wants to look back, but keep looking forward. They're a rock band, so of course they're saying they never want to look back musically. But what did they do with Bomb? The entire album was a look back. It wasn't daring in any way. It was a collection of sounds taken directly from their past albums with nothing new at all. The most creative song on the entire album was One Step Closer and they already had an album of songs like that called Passangers. The album broke down absolutely no walls musically. It didn't move the band forward in any way. We can talk about the band's goal of bringing us closer to God and getting us to love eachother all we want, and that's fine, but the main issue always has been and always will be the quality of the music. You're almost making it sound like U2 can do no wrong because of the intentions behind their songs.

I'm not saying U2 should be a certain way. I'm saying U2 should stick to what they say and move on. I've been hearing U2's music sounding exactly the same for the past seven years and I'm ready for the band to take a step forward. The reason this band is respected is because they weren't willing to play it safe in the past. They went through the biggest change I've ever seen any band go through with Achtung Baby. That was huge when you think about it. The most popular band in the world completely recreated themselves and it made them more respected than ever. It earned them respect. Not the respect an old, aging rocker who rambles on about love and world peace gets, but the respect that musical and artistic geniuse gets. The music was new and daring for the band, the lyrical style was new and poetic and it actually meant something. The band was busting down walls left and right.

That's not what U2 looks like today. I don't need them to go through another unbelievably huge change and redefine what kind of band they are, but I want to see them to keep busting down some walls. The heart of U2 will always be there, and I'll always love their message, but if they keep presnting their message the same way year after years I don't see why I should have much interest.

I respect where you are coming from, and I'm not trying to "justify" U2. If I am understanding you correctly when you speak of breaking down walls you are talking about in musical sense. What you are saying makes perfect sense looking at U2 from a strictly musical viewpoint. I would argue that having the kind of global appeal that they do means that they have broken down a lot of walls and made connections with a wide variety of people. My point is that U2 has always been more about the spirit of the music or the effect the music has than what the music sounds like. That is reason that they were able to constantly reinvent themselves. Achtung Baby was an extreme demonstration of that in that their goal was to strip away everything that sounded like U2 and prove that they were still U2. It was by no means the first time they had stretched themselves. Every U2 album sounds different and that includes the last two. They may be slightly similar and they may indeed be considered "safe" musically, but they are still different in mood, energy and emotion. When we analyze them, we all tend to apply our own standards to them but it is important in my view to try to determine what they really intended. In all of their explorations of other genres of music they were always searching for the essence or spirit of that genre not merely the sound and that spirit is what they bring back to their own music. Bono has actually stated this in interviews. You comment about them making a change in Vertigo in order to appeal to younger listeners (what's your source for that) but what I am saying is that if, as artists, their goal or desire is to reach out to those listeners then anything they do to their music to achieve that is valid. There is a world of difference between that and a record company forcing change in music to suit their own goals. It's not the end result that is suspect but whether the artist has been forced to compromise. It is not appealing to the masses that is bad or wrong it is who got stomped on to get to that appeal. For the artist who is focused soley on the work itself the outside world should have no effect other than inspiration, but U2 from the very beginning have considered there work unfinished until the audience has become a part of the process. Early on in their career they even spoke of the albums as being totally separate in their opinion from their live performances, almost as if they are separate works. Now they are trying to integrate the two more as evidenced by the increasing number of people Bono tends to drag in off the street to get opinions on the music as it developes. I would even argue that the whole beach clips thing could have been deliberately staged by Bono to get reactions without having to actually officially expose the music. That arguement becomes even more attractive when you take into consideration their use of YouTube in developing the Window in the Skies video. In my opinion from what I have read over the last couple of years (which is a lot) they actually have more interest in the reaction the music gets than they do in what it sounds like. Do you know of other artists who routinely tear their own music to shreds during the development process the way U2 does? If so I'd like to hear who they are so that I can check them out as well. Many interviews with other artist have shown them being astounded at how open U2 are to an outsiders opinion on their music as well as how open the band is between themselves. Contrast that with Metallica for instance. Look at how incredibly difficult it was for James Hetfield to allow the rest of the band to be a part of the songwriting process. To me, almost nothing in the way U2 operates resembles that of other musicians therefore using strictly musical standards to judge their work doesn't ring true to me.

Also, I don't see U2 as trying to bring people to God but rather trying to bring people to love. For them as individuals, God=Love but they don't try to tell others that they have to believe the same thing. Everyone of every religion is capable of love. That is the one thing that unites everyone (even the atheists). But Bono doesn't sing about the hippy-dippy kind of love, rather the real kind of love, that hurts as well as heals, that is hard but oh so rewarding. He encourages people to have the strength to get past the hurt and back to the love. He doesn't pretend the world is perfect but still shows that it is worthwhile trying to make a difference.

So maybe the last two albums can be seen as "safe" musically, maybe they aren't being as cutting edge musically as some want them to be but from what I can see when it comes to what they have stated their goals for their music to be, they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. When it comes to musically speaking I don't think anyone on this planet beats David Bowie in daring and experimentation and innovation. But as much as I love Bowie his albums are often not easy to listen too and he doesn't move me the way that U2 does. They are all incredible artist but in completely different categories as far as I am concerned. The more that I learn about U2 the more I tend to see them in a category entirely their own, outside of music in a way. They are much more artists of communication than they are of any particular genre of music. I also think that they have been way ahead of other artists in incorporating the visual into the music not because of any specific use of visual arts but because of the fact that even very early on in their songwriting there was always a visual aspect if only in their heads. The fact that they were totally involved in the album art and were actually astonished to learn that many other artists were not. For them it was inconceivable that you would not care how the album was packaged. They don't seem to think of music the same way that other musicians do and in fact they tend to hang out more with artists and writers than they do with musicians or in Larry and Adams case more with just regular people. Larry hangs out more with builders, plumbers, and electricians than he does with other musicians. All four of them even after 30 years in the business do not tend to call themselves musicians. They are outside of all the boxes really.

With respect,
Dana
 
My how times have changed. Everything that is being said negatively about "ATYCLB" and "HTDDAB" in this thread is a re-hash of everything we've seen in the ZOO TV era Interference thread. Those postings from the mid-90s run "AB" and "Zooropa" into the ground. "The songs don't mean anything anymore" "The lyrics are terrible" "U2 needs to go back to the JT/80s sounds" There were complaints about the tour and the bands live performances too. EVery complaint is basically the same now, except people want them to return to an experimental/90s sound. I suppose in 10 years, if U2 is still making music, people will be complaining about it and saying "They need to back to the sounds of the 2000s.
 
shart1780 said:
Then who's to judge when U2 has "two crap albums"? The general feeling among fans is that U2 have gone downhill fast in the past seven years. .........

How can you say that the general feeling among fans is that U2 have gone downhill fast? The Poll that AtU2.com did at the end of last year shows the direct opposite. The last 2 albums were listed at 3 and 4th in popularity, and 75% of the people who voted in that poll own All of the albums, so they were more than just casual fans. The poll was directed at U2 fan sites.

http://www.atu2.com/survey/2006/

The problem with message boards is you have the same 100 people posting the same opinions over and over and over again(on whatever opinion). From what I can tell, on this board, there are a dozen or so posters who really don't like the last few albums and state that opinion whenever they can. There's also a few posters that will defend post 2000 U2 in the same threads. Then theres the majority of fans that will listen to the albums they like and not listen to the ones they don't like. According to the poll linked above, most of the fans like the last few albums.
 
rihannsu said:

The more that I learn about U2 the more I tend to see them in a category entirely their own, outside of music in a way. They are much more artists of communication than they are of any particular genre of music. I also think that they have been way ahead of other artists in incorporating the visual into the music not because of any specific use of visual arts but because of the fact that even very early on in their songwriting there was always a visual aspect if only in their heads.
Dana

This has always been the way I have listened to U2. Not what was popular or the way other's thought it should sound. I feel their music as well as listen and few bands draw that response from me.
It's always been about the personal for me and for some reason U2 have made their music personal, and a great deal of the time it feels like they made it just for me. That's a rarity and the reason I love them so much. :heart:
I love reading your post rihannsu, you have a remarkable way of putting things in perspective. Thanks :up:
 
thank you rihannsu :)

I feel closer now to the source that gave me so much joy in U2 than I've been in a long, long time
 
I think that they have been underrated a lot. Even though they get awards people think that they don’t deserve it sometimes (HTDMAB), and they do! There are a lot of acts out there (and solo artists) who are crap. People tend to criticize them but don't give them enough credit. Hey, they are not the Beatles but they sure as hell are right up there. I know that U2 have aaaaaaaaaaaa lot of fans out there but were are a very unique breed. Seriously, we are. I just think that entertainment business doesn't quite give them enough recognition.
 
Zooropa man said:
I think that they have been underrated a lot. Even though they get awards people think that they don’t deserve it sometimes (HTDMAB), and they do! There are a lot of acts out there (and solo artists) who are crap. People tend to criticize them but don't give them enough credit. Hey, they are not the Beatles but they sure as hell are right up there. I know that U2 have aaaaaaaaaaaa lot of fans out there but were are a very unique breed. Seriously, we are. I just think that entertainment business doesn't quite give them enough recognition.

Grammys mean as much as a trophy at the YMCA.

They're so worthless, even Fergie has one.
 
it's funny how on this forum winning a Grammy apparently makes an album worse than not winning one

even though U2 would also get ridiculed if they would lose out to other contenders for a Grammy


I do think we have become to complacent about what the band has and is achieving
 
The grammy are a commercial. Bands that are already popular regardless of their musical talent are awarded for their work and are thus promoted even more, which allows them to earn more money.

When good musicians win a grammy it's only by coincidence.
 
In U2 by U2, the band talks with great fondness about the grammys they have won, and even Larry talks about how he no longer takes awards for granted but was actually very appreciative of their latest grammy wins.

So either the band is very naive and doesn't realize that winning a grammy is nothing but a commercial gimmick, or maybe a grammy does actually have more significance than just money and exposure.
 
Back
Top Bottom