Image '08

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

ahittle

Refugee
Joined
Nov 14, 2002
Messages
1,096
You know what was pretty badass about AB-era U2? They didn't rush around trying to embrace every promotional opportunity that came along. You could call them aloof, but they definitely cultivated a stand-offish cool to deflate the earnestness of R&H. The front-loaded their sets with a good chunk of a brand new record. They followed up an experimental record with an even more experimental record and still got rich(er) in the process. They swore on television. They fucked with the president of the United States night after night.

Of course, it was all a con, and Bono will always be Bono. But they let the masses come to them and didn't act too desperate to be loved. And they released "The Fly" as their first single. Badass. They released "Lemon" as a single. Batshit crazy badass.

I'd like to see that again on the next go around. "Take us or leave us. This is what we're doing and we're not going to play a greatest hits show. We're not going to re-record singles to fit your narrow playlists. We're not going to do wacky tie-ins with the NBA. We're not going to produce lowest common denominator videos to suck up to the MTV demos."

I know all of this can be easily refuted and I'm not trying to start any arguments.

I'd like to see the rebirth of the cool.
 
ahittle said:
You know what was pretty badass about AB-era U2? They didn't rush around trying to embrace every promotional opportunity that came along. You could call them aloof, but they definitely cultivated a stand-offish cool to deflate the earnestness of R&H. The front-loaded their sets with a good chunk of a brand new record. They followed up an experimental record with an even more experimental record and still got rich(er) in the process. They swore on television. They fucked with the president of the United States night after night.

Of course, it was all a con, and Bono will always be Bono. But they let the masses come to them and didn't act too desperate to be loved. And they released "The Fly" as their first single. Badass. They released "Lemon" as a single. Batshit crazy badass.

I'd like to see that again on the next go around. "Take us or leave us. This is what we're doing and we're not going to play a greatest hits show. We're not going to re-record singles to fit your narrow playlists. We're not going to do wacky tie-ins with the NBA. We're not going to produce lowest common denominator videos to suck up to the MTV demos."

I know all of this can be easily refuted and I'm not trying to start any arguments.

I'd like to see the rebirth of the cool.

There's one problem: Paul mcguinness
 
To my eyes, Paul probably pulled much more weight in the 80's when they were rising to the top. Once they sold a gazillion albums and won the top Grammy prize, they could pretty much do whatever the hell they wanted to. Rattle & Hum, despited being critically divisive, still was financially successful. So when they embarked on Achtung and ZooTV, they had earned it. I'm sure McGuinne$$ wasn't too excited about the risks and the experimentation, but they paid off: Achtung sold more than any other U2 album save Joshua Tree, and the tour was phenomenally successful. More Grammies followed. So how could he really prevent them from going even further with Zooropa and Pop?

Once Pop and Popmart underperformed, PMcG probably said "Alright, you've had your fun, now it's time to get back on top again, and this is what you have to do in order to achieve that goal." Since then everything has been calculated with the sole purpose of putting them right back where they were at the end of the 80's.

Guess what? They just won another Grammy for Album of the Year, and the last two albums, while not coming close to the sales of AB or JT, have done their jobs in the increasingly difficult marketplace. They are back where they started. So it doesn't surprise me that they're thinking experimentally again. However, I imagine this time around McGuinne$$ is keeping a more watchful eye on the proceedings to avoid 1997 again. They're free to make whatever music they want, but I think his choices about release dates, tour dates, exposure, promotion and advertising, etc. are unfortunately going to follow the U2K model.
 
lazarus said:

(...)the last two albums, while not coming close to the sales of AB or JT, have done their jobs in the increasingly difficult marketplace.

Never forget that these are post 2000 albums. These albums, if released in the late 80's/early 90's would've sell the same or almost the same as AB did. But they still made a great job. How many bands can sell 10M copies with albums released after 2003 +/-?
 
Yup, the 1991 U2 didn't care about promotion at all. That's why they had 3 MTV specials, and started making fancy videos. I'm guessing that's also why they cleverly didn't go for the stadiums from the start in the US. Don't think they weren't wanting AB to be a success, or that they weren't aiming for a young audience by riding the Manchester scene of the early 90's.

Yes, they started their sets with plenty of new material, but it also meant scrapping 3 albums' worth of material - which at the time was almost half of their catalogue. It also marked the start of a decade of rigid setlists (but hey, we got the B I G shows!), which didn't get rectified until the last two tours.
Funny you should mention re-working songs: Who's gonna ride your wild horses was worked on for over a month, by Lillywhite, for the single remix and the band hated the album version. Pop had 3 changed single versions. And need I mention the start of the million upon millions of remixes (which are all about getting into the club scene, and so yet another effort to reach the young audience) we started getting in the 1990's ?

You can cry out "McGuiness wants the cash!" all you want but show me one band member that didn't get either a fancy car or a nice crib for their money. Show me a quote where they rip on McGuiness for forcing them into doing anything. I think not many managers would let a band like U2 get away with anything they did in the 90's, but he did. Doesn't sound like a money greedy power control freak to me.

I think the "cool" was just a bad act (and betrayal of what they stood for before), and I'd like to see them snap out of it. (in particulary Bono who for the last two tours was a washed up, ageing version of The Fly) The band photo poses, the obsession to be big, the smirky grins, the looong recordings.
 
Last edited:
The only thing that McGuiness did in the 90's that mostly his idea and not the band's was to keep almost a media blackout going in the US until after the tour started and then carefully controlled who had access as far as press. This was a genius move to counteract the previous R&H backlash and it worked fabulously. By the time anyone got to actually interview the band they were slavering at the bit for any news. Also starting off with arenas in the US was deliberate because they knew they were sinking tons of money into the tour and by starting small they could gauge the reception before committing to the rest of the tour. Once they saw the success of the first few dates there was pretty much no stopping them. Remember they did ZooTV with no sponsorship so it was all their money on the line, no one elses. McGuiness has never had any input into the creative process for the albums whatsoever. He would have some input on the tour stuff because money does make a difference in what you can do or not do on tour, but he really didn't try to curb them too much because he was having fun too. They have said that they didn't even realize how much they were spending until the bills started coming in and I think they ended up with about a 4% profit margin for the tour which is pretty pitifull. I'm not sure if that included merchandising but I know that on Popmart if you took out the merchandising they were basically paying to play on a lot of those concerts, especially South America and Australia.

Dana
 
U2girl said:
Yup, the 1991 U2 didn't care about promotion at all. That's why they had 3 MTV specials, and started making fancy videos. I'm guessing that's also why they cleverly didn't go for the stadiums from the start in the US. Don't think they weren't wanting AB to be a success, or that they weren't aiming for a young audience by riding the Manchester scene of the early 90's.

The recording of the album started before all that stuff was big enough for them to be bandwagoners. There's nothing wrong with being aware with what's going on and taking a hint or two.

No one said they didn't do promotion before, they were just a little more creative about it. The videos from Achtung weren't low budget, but they were also good, something I'd have a hard time saying about all but 1 or 2 of post-2000 U2.

U2girl said:
Funny you should mention re-working songs: Who's gonna ride your wild horses was worked on for over a month, by Lillywhite, for the single remix and the band hated the album version. Pop had 3 changed single versions. And need I mention the start of the million upon millions of remixes (which are all about getting into the club scene, and so yet another effort to reach the young audience) we started getting in the 1990's ?

Your lone exception of Wild Horses aside, those Pop remakes were at that point the beginning of damage control. Last Night on Earth wasn't until, what, summer 1997, when they were already panicking. So I don't know what your point here is. This is likely something that McGuinne$$ pushed for himself.

Also, what's wrong with being elastic with the music? Perhaps we have different ideas of what "calculated" and "opportunistic" mean, but I don't think dance remixes of U2 songs are made to get club kids or ravers to buy rock albums. Just because you might like dancing a Perfecto remix doesn't mean you're going to sign up for an album's worth of stuff that sounds NOTHING like it. I think it's an opportunity to let other artists work with the material, and perhaps an exchange of ideas take place. Who's the cynical one here?

U2girl said:
You can cry out "McGuiness wants the cash!" all you want but show me one band member that didn't get either a fancy car or a nice crib for their money. Show me a quote where they rip on McGuiness for forcing them into doing anything. I think not many managers would let a band like U2 get away with anything they did in the 90's, but he did. Doesn't sound like a money greedy power control freak to me.

We're talking about the band that cleared little money from the ZooTV tour, right? Just making sure. I highly doubt that plan was to PMcG's preferences. Again, no one is saying they aren't interested in living a comfortable life. Stop concocting strawman arguments that you can easily knock down. You always do this, and look like a fool each time.

I said earlier that it was the band's success that gave them the leverage to go against what were likely objections from PMcG. He didn't "let" them do anything. But when Pop and Popmart blew up in their faces (the way they saw it, at least), they probably looked at him to clean up the mess, and were more likely to follow his suggestions at that point.

U2girl said:
I think the "cool" was just a bad act (and betrayal of what they stood for before), and I'd like to see them snap out of it. (in particulary Bono who for the last two tours was a washed up, ageing version of The Fly) The band photo poses, the obsession to be big, the smirky grins, the looong recordings.

Christ, what is it that you DO like? You rant against the people who long for the 90's aesthetic and daring, and then go off on their 00's ethos as well. You prefer to turn the clock way back and have the pompous, righteous freedom fighters from the 80's?

As for them "betraying" themselves with Achtung and ZooTV, that's so ridiculous I don't know what to start. It's as if you haven't read a single book or interview, and have no clue as to the corner they had painted themselves into by the end of 1989. Exploring a different side of yourself (or the world around you) isn't a betrayal, it's looking for the whole truth.

All I can say is, thank god you're not in charge.
 
Re: Re: Image '08

Peterrrrr said:


There's one problem: Paul mcguinness

It's an interesting point. I sometimes wonder about how much influence that guy has, and whether it's positive.
 
U2girl said:
You can cry out "McGuiness wants the cash!" all you want but show me one band member that didn't get either a fancy car or a nice crib for their money. Show me a quote where they rip on McGuiness for forcing them into doing anything. I think not many managers would let a band like U2 get away with anything they did in the 90's, but he did. Doesn't sound like a money greedy power control freak to me.

Fair point. I have a open mind on this one.
 
lazarus said:


Christ, what is it that you DO like? You rant against the people who long for the 90's aesthetic and daring, and then go off on their 00's ethos as well. You prefer to turn the clock way back and have the pompous, righteous freedom fighters from the 80's?

As for them "betraying" themselves with Achtung and ZooTV, that's so ridiculous I don't know what to start. It's as if you haven't read a single book or interview, and have no clue as to the corner they had painted themselves into by the end of 1989. Exploring a different side of yourself (or the world around you) isn't a betrayal, it's looking for the whole truth.

All I can say is, thank god you're not in charge.

Wow. Chill. Everyone has their own opinion, no need to get excited about it. :hug:
 
Mrs. Garrison said:


Wow. Chill. Everyone has their own opinion, no need to get excited about it. :hug:

She has made the same lame arguments over and over, and it's a little tired. The quote that Finance Guy agrees with so much is just such a lame attempt to make a couple easy points that NO ONE would disagree with. Yes, they all have a lot of money. No, McGuinne$$ doesn't force them to do anything. No, they don't publicly rip on him.

What's disingenuous about her statements is that she is failing to mention that the band made very little money from the ZooTV tour (a well known fact), something Paul could not have been crazy about. Also, her implying that the band had to get his permission to take these risks is far-fetched.

Bottom line is, he was hired to make the band successful and he did a great job. Did he help engineer the success in the 90's as well? I'm sure that, playing with the hand he was dealt by the band, did what he could to promote it, but I'm sure he would have LOVED to see some corporate sponsorship.

And I don't think it's a stretch to say that a businessman is greedy. They probably wouldn't be where they are now if he wasn't. I just think that the post-2000 U2 appear a little more desperate and greedy than they need to be. The iPod commercial--not a bad idea. Ramming it down everyone's throat for months on end--maybe a bit too much.
 
U2girl said:
Yup, the 1991 U2 didn't care about promotion at all. That's why they had 3 MTV specials, and started making fancy videos. I'm guessing that's also why they cleverly didn't go for the stadiums from the start in the US. Don't think they weren't wanting AB to be a success, or that they weren't aiming for a young audience by riding the Manchester scene of the early 90's.

:blahblah:

God! Why do you keep saying the same thing in every thread? It gets very tiresome. So you think U2 has always been a media whore and still is? Okay.

lazarus said:
Christ, what is it that you DO like? You rant against the people who long for the 90's aesthetic and daring, and then go off on their 00's ethos as well. You prefer to turn the clock way back and have the pompous, righteous freedom fighters from the 80's?

As for them "betraying" themselves with Achtung and ZooTV, that's so ridiculous I don't know what to start. It's as if you haven't read a single book or interview, and have no clue as to the corner they had painted themselves into by the end of 1989. Exploring a different side of yourself (or the world around you) isn't a betrayal, it's looking for the whole truth.

All I can say is, thank god you're not in charge.

Well said. :up:
 
All this talk of U2 forming their music and attitude to MG's wishes depresses me. Isn't That called selling out? Maybe U2 should just let their music go wherever it decides to go WITHOUT the influence of anyone outside the band.

OK, U2 might not sell multi-platinum albums? Is that a horrible thing? NO. If a U2 album sold 1/4 as much as a normal album they'd still keep their label and fans. They should just go ape crazy and worry only about the music they want to create. That's what true artists do.
 
Paul McGuinness sounds like a great manager, he's made U2 a ton of money and now they're basically free of any label concerns. How has he become a "McGuinne$$" villain? Have I missed something huge?

Once Pop and Popmart underperformed, PMcG probably said "Alright, you've had your fun, now it's time to get back on top again, and this is what you have to do in order to achieve that goal." Since then everything has been calculated with the sole purpose of putting them right back where they were at the end of the 80's.

Guess what? They just won another Grammy for Album of the Year, and the last two albums, while not coming close to the sales of AB or JT, have done their jobs in the increasingly difficult marketplace. They are back where they started. So it doesn't surprise me that they're thinking experimentally again. However, I imagine this time around McGuinne$$ is keeping a more watchful eye on the proceedings to avoid 1997 again. They're free to make whatever music they want, but I think his choices about release dates, tour dates, exposure, promotion and advertising, etc. are unfortunately going to follow the U2K model.

He's probably done this and you think he's done that. Wow, what rock-hard evidence of the grip Paul has on the band.

Ok, release dates? EVERY U2 album since Rattle and Hum has been released in the fall/winter, in time for the holidays. Even Passengers. Pop was originally scheduled for a holiday release, and Zooropa was pooped out in the middle of a tour. There's a very consistent idea here- once the band hit it big with The Joshua Tree, they could cease the nonstop touring and recording, and start the album/tour cycle when it was most relaxing and most profitable for them. U2 releasing an album in fall '08 isn't an evil McGuinness plot that Paul thought of while staring at a poster of the Pop album cover with the words "never again" scrawled across in the blood of his first born, they'll do it because it's pretty damn convenient. They earn the most money during a holidays release, and then when the tour starts they hit the sweet spot of outdoor touring in arenas and stadiums the following spring/summer. It's not a coincidence that Southern Hemisphere tour stops usually end up being in our wintertime.
 
mobvok said:
He's probably done this and you think he's done that. Wow, what rock-hard evidence of the grip Paul has on the band.

Oh, shut up. Without speculation this whole forum would be practically devoid of half its threads.

Can you point out where I said he has a grip on the band? His job is to make them successful. I tried to point to a moment in the band's history where that wasn't a problem anymore, which was around the release of Achtung Baby. They "abused their position and fucked up the mainstream". For whatever reasons (I'd argue better marketing could have prevented this), Pop underperformed and their experimentation came back to bite them in the ass. I don't think it's a stretch to say McGuinness came to the rescue here, as we see all they did to stop the bleeding with the "single mixes" and the subsequent promotion and marketing of the 00's.

[
 
**Edited**

I thought you basically said in your first post that PMG made U2 change musical styles from Pop to ATYCLB, because of these quotes:

Once Pop and Popmart underperformed, PMcG probably said "Alright, you've had your fun,

and

They're free to make whatever music they want, but I think his choices about release dates, tour dates, exposure, promotion and advertising, etc. are unfortunately going to follow the U2K model.

Except, after re-reading, you said pretty clearly “they’re free to make whatever music they want”. Oops. My apologies on that point.

But, you said it’s “his choices” as far as album and tour dates and as I said it makes sense that the current schedule is to the band's preference and benefit, and not solely from Paul's dictate. It seems almost redundantly obvious as the man in charge of making the band lots of money that he would be the one who originally pointed out to the band they could sell more albums in the fall then spring, but ascribing the ultimate inevitable decision to push the album to a holiday '08 release on PMG and not the collective brainpower of PLEBA feels like trying to blame other people other then the band for not having fresh U2 material sooner. I find it really obnoxious that we’re talking about a release date over a year from now, but I think it’s a decision all 5 people are happy with.

I think U2Girl had some good points about whether or not Zoo-era U2 was appealing to the MTV demographic as far as promotion. I know from U2 At The End Of The World that MTV and U2 were so close they even were in discussions about starting a Zoo TV program to air nighttime on MTV. I think the essence of what people like the topic starter want is for U2 to act cool again, but I think he has some wrong assumptions about the manner in which they acted to become cool- it wasn't through avoiding that sort of outlet, it was through the style of music and the message they were giving. HTDAAB is pretty straight alt-rock, and has an uplifting overall message. It's just not as cool to be singing about how awesome love is or about the stingy giving habits of American churches to Africa versus the AB themes of information overload, lust, sex, and whatever else.
 
Last edited:
lazarus said:


The recording of the album started before all that stuff was big enough for them to be bandwagoners. There's nothing wrong with being aware with what's going on and taking a hint or two.

No one said they didn't do promotion before, they were just a little more creative about it. The videos from Achtung weren't low budget, but they were also good, something I'd have a hard time saying about all but 1 or 2 of post-2000 U2.



Your lone exception of Wild Horses aside, those Pop remakes were at that point the beginning of damage control. Last Night on Earth wasn't until, what, summer 1997, when they were already panicking. So I don't know what your point here is. This is likely something that McGuinne$$ pushed for himself.

Also, what's wrong with being elastic with the music? Perhaps we have different ideas of what "calculated" and "opportunistic" mean, but I don't think dance remixes of U2 songs are made to get club kids or ravers to buy rock albums. Just because you might like dancing a Perfecto remix doesn't mean you're going to sign up for an album's worth of stuff that sounds NOTHING like it. I think it's an opportunity to let other artists work with the material, and perhaps an exchange of ideas take place. Who's the cynical one here?



We're talking about the band that cleared little money from the ZooTV tour, right? Just making sure. I highly doubt that plan was to PMcG's preferences. Again, no one is saying they aren't interested in living a comfortable life. Stop concocting strawman arguments that you can easily knock down. You always do this, and look like a fool each time.

I said earlier that it was the band's success that gave them the leverage to go against what were likely objections from PMcG. He didn't "let" them do anything. But when Pop and Popmart blew up in their faces (the way they saw it, at least), they probably looked at him to clean up the mess, and were more likely to follow his suggestions at that point.



Christ, what is it that you DO like? You rant against the people who long for the 90's aesthetic and daring, and then go off on their 00's ethos as well. You prefer to turn the clock way back and have the pompous, righteous freedom fighters from the 80's?

As for them "betraying" themselves with Achtung and ZooTV, that's so ridiculous I don't know what to start. It's as if you haven't read a single book or interview, and have no clue as to the corner they had painted themselves into by the end of 1989. Exploring a different side of yourself (or the world around you) isn't a betrayal, it's looking for the whole truth.

All I can say is, thank god you're not in charge.


How was looking at the surge of pop music in the 00's is that different to looking at what was going on in the 90's ? If U2 was all about money when they made ATYCLB, why not make the same assumption on their 90's albums ? They looked at the hot music at the time just as much.
I never said no one said they didn't do promotion before, it's just tiring to see the "sell out! media whores!" crying when NOTHING changed - this is U2 we're talking about. In fact I'd say the 40+ year old bunch of whiteys in a rock band needs promotion more than ever in the US (AB was selling by the truckloads, videos or not. In comparison, I think the success of Beautiful day and Vertigo did play a part in the last two albums's sales). And I consider an Ipod lots more creative than any video (read Flanagan's book on them offering their music and cutting the middle man). Most of U2's albums are released in the Fall, it's not some evil McMoney schemed plot, that is so far fetched it's not even funny.

Um, my point was the re-recording of songs and single remixes didn't start in the much viled 00's. And I dubt McGuiness said "right guys, let's re-record the singles". You know the history of Pop better than that to be spouting stuff like this.
Interesting, I think the remixes are a lot about getting the kids into your music, yes. You think the kids in the early 90's didn't hear the remix of, say, MW and think "I like this song. Who's this?" and then gone out and bought the album ?

Um, we're also talking about a band that was guaranteed millions of dollars - 100 million bucks no matter how much the shows earned if I remember right - by their promoter for Popmart (you know, the band didn't start earning money on tours with the last two tours). I was replying to your weak "McGuiness is evil" argument and unbiased assumptions about him, which don't hold water. Again, I don't think many managers - or labels, even - would let a major rock band get away with AB, and especially Zooropa, Passengers and Pop (I wonder what role Interscope, their label since 2000 in the US had with the marketing though). But keep telling yourself "McCash hated it and bossed the band around after Pop" if you like. You're the one that keeps saying the same cheap shots they needed - and had - his approval and guidance for the marketing post Pop, and fail to bring up evidence.

His role was, first and foremost, as interviews will tell you, get the record deal. Second, he got them the complete freedom to album making (choice of producer, cover... everything) and more importantly, complete back catalog rights. Does he want them making money ? Show me a manager that doesn't. Does he dictate their promotion ? No (this is not to say he doesn't give his input on any given deal). We know they make the big decisions together as a band.

Yes, a lot of it was betraying. How many times did we hear the "but they didn't care about the critics in the 90's" line yet the biggest change in their career happened BECAUSE they listened to critisism. Sure they may have been tired of making that kind of music, but I doubt the whole stage personas thing and the new relaxed, "cool" (trying hard with the cliche definition of cool isn't cool) image would be done as radically if it wasn't for the "preachy" JT era U2.
We're having fun, dancing with female fans and spraying champagne huh ? I'd say Bono having a glass of wine with Ali on stage or Dalton Brothers proved the band can loosen up already (and it wasn't an each night, scripted - I mean spontaneous - thing).
Thanks to the whole "let's not be an 80s band anymore" they also skipped 3 albums worth of material on tour which started a trend of not playing much of their early material for the whole decade. But we got the B I G tours for it. Speaking of tours, can you see post 1991 U2 actually saying "we got burned by the US so we won't go touring there?" ?
And we have that era to thank for the oceans of remixes since.

And I think the band, especially Bono, still hasn't got out of their "Fly" stage (the leather, the shades, the lengthy album making, the smirking, the poses on photos, the need to be accepted by a young audience). I guess it doesn't help things if you have the pink shades firmly on when it comes to the 90's though.
 
Last edited:
U2 girl, I usually agree with what you are saying, maybe except for the last paragraph of your post. I, for myself, don't see much Fly-like left in today's Bono, if anything, the band has returned to some of the seriousness of the good old 80s days and moved away from the irony that was Zoo TV. It may be the reason why some people, especially those who only like 90s U2, are attacking him or the band, but I am not particularly sad about it, since I wouldn't see that fitting into the image that Bono has been trying to convey of himself in recent years.

I for my part don't see the Fly-thing in what they've been doing on the last two tours, but if you refer to their self-portrayal as a band, I guess there is a Fly in everyone in this business.

Trying to attract a younger audience? Yes, maybe with Beautiful day, but not with the last album and tour. And still, it's not a bad thing to try and do so, that's part of why they are still relevant.

Also, I somehow see U2 moving in a different direction image-wise for the new album/new era, due to their age. I don't know exactly how that will look like, but I'm curious about it.
 
U2girl said:


How many times did we hear the "but they didn't care about the critics in the 90's" line yet the biggest change in their career happened BECAUSE they listened to critisism. Sure they may have been tired of making that kind of music, but I doubt the whole stage personas thing and the new relaxed, "cool" (trying hard with the cliche definition of cool isn't cool) image would be done as radically if it wasn't for the "preachy" JT era U2.
We're having fun, dancing with female fans and spraying champagne huh ? I'd say Bono having a glass of wine with Ali on stage or Dalton Brothers proved the band can loosen up already (and it wasn't an each night, scripted - I mean spontaneous - thing).

.:yes: Spontaneity was in very short supply during the cold and calculating 90's, but I guess people see only what they want to.
 
ahittle said:
You know what was pretty badass about AB-era U2? They didn't rush around trying to embrace every promotional opportunity that came along.
You know what's funny ? I'm convinced that 90% of people here discovered U2 during one of these promotional opportunities.
Don't be so posh.
 
ahittle said:


I'd like to see the rebirth of the cool.

911 changed Bono's perspective on everything.

So I think you will see only the continual development of a humanitarianism in Bono and his music.

That is rebirthing cool again and again and again.

dbs
 
Re: Re: Image '08

diamond said:


911 changed Bono's perspective on everything.




oh, yes, everything is about 911 -- all those trips to Africa starting in 1986 and his involvement with Jubilee 2000 in 1998 have nothing to do with where he is now.

what people also dont seem to get is that the 90s were far from "daring" in a devil-may-care way; they were artistically adventurous, but not "daring." U2 absolutely had to change from their creaky, pompous 80s-ness, and the did it absolutely brilliantly, and AB was not only a genius album, but it was utterly and totally successful from a career standpoint -- they could now do anything, they became a band for the ages, and they extended their careers indefinitely and made certain that they would be much more than a righteous 80s band.

and don't think they didn't know this, and don't think they didn't know their careers and their history were on the line with AB. they didn't get all "daring" because they wanted to; they did because they had to. i see the adventure, i don't see the "daring."

trust them. they've always known what they were doing.

is there anyone else of the opinion that if they had waited until fall of '97 and actually bothered to flesh out the ideas on Pop and then rehearsed and toured in 1998 that it would have been another smashing success?
 
lazarus said:
Once Pop and Popmart underperformed, PMcG probably said "Alright, you've had your fun, now it's time to get back on top again, and this is what you have to do in order to achieve that goal." Since then everything has been calculated with the sole purpose of putting them right back where they were at the end of the 80's.

You think that Paul is influencing their musical direction in order to make more money?! If that were true, that would mean that U2's music is basically all fabricated; the emotion and passion is fake. They're just a money machine for their manager. How sad and, thankfully, untrue. They aren't N*Sync.

And I think that everyone needs to stop lusting after the AB era. It was just one of many phases that U2 has gone through. They're probably not going to repeat themselves in that way, and it would be really pathetic if they tried. Think about it.

I'm sure they will experiment in different ways in the future, but I wouldn't hold out for another ZooTV-type thing.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom