McPhisto: A Failure

[80sU2isBest]

This is a question; I accidentally left out the question mark after the word "Failure". I got finished reading "Walk On" and enjoyed most of it. I felt the author was reaching on some parts, but in other areas, I thought he was right on. One area in which the book benefitted me is that I now cut Bono a little more slack concerning U2 in the 90s. Not that I like the music, but I have an understanding of what Bono was trying to do (the whole Screwtape letters and trying to show what the world is truly like without God). I really admire Bono a whole lot - even more after reading this book. That being said, I pose to you all a question:
Was McPhisto and the whole "Life is Empty without God" experiment a failure? Did the guys in the band really get their point across? Or did they just manage to turn off many of their 80's fans, who didn't understand what they were doing?
I know that in my case, and several people I know and have heard of, it just turned me off. I was freaked. Teh music was weird, the attitude was suddenly very different, and I couldn't handle it. And I had read Screwtape Letters. Bono had even publicly said "it's all an act", but after it went on for a couple of years, it seemed to me that they had become what they were portraying. I just didn't get it. Did anyone get it? Or should U2 have been a little more blatant about what they were doing? Did anyone else here not get the whole thing?
Thanks for reading.



[This message has been edited by 80sU2isBest (edited 01-15-2002).]

 

[hippy]

This is interesting. I only recently became a big fan (with ATYCLB) and so I missed the whole MacPhisto thing the first time around. But I must say that it intrigues me. And people's reactions to it intrigue me. My perception is that U2 was going through a very cynical time in their careers, wondering and doubting the future, etc. They were also at a stage in their walk with God where they really were questioning (which is a natural process). And being artists, they produced art that reflected their feelings and their musings. I do this too. Whatever I'm thinking comes out in my writing and my art. And I'm sure that cynicism frightened many people. They didn't like to see this band (who they had been counting on to continue leading them spiritually) suddenly begin to delve deeper into themselves. And then there were those who followed the band and went with them on the journey through what seem like some of the darkest parts of their lives.

As I said, I wasn't there when the whole thing happened, but I find that listening to those albums helps me to understand that my period of questioning God and my values is something that other people have gone through. To me, it's kind of a comfort to see this whole time period.

So, yes, I do think that MacPhisto, and more generally that whole time period, was a success. But that's my opinion. I do understand how other people can see it as a failure that just alienated a lot of fans.

And thanks Deb for this quote! I like it a lot!

Originally posted by truecoloursfly:

In the end, MacPhisto communicated a LOT about the illness of the soul, wehther or not we believed (feared)it was Bono's illness. Didn't he? And THAT is an artist's ultimate success.

------------------
BONO: FOAD, Lawrence. Just FOAD. (LOL, Mona)

You can dream, so dream out loud!

Create Light, Create Unity, Create Joy, CREATE PEACE!

 

[camiloj]

Generally speaking 80s I'd say that if what the author of that book says the purpose of MacPhisto is what you said(does that make sense), then I would say it was mostly a failure. Only really deep listeners would have been able to figure that out. That's what I think. I consider myself a long term dedicated U2 fan (as do you) and we didn't get that this is what U2 was doing when they were doing it. I knew he was being ironic and sarcastic and all that, but I did not know this specific explanation of the MacPhisto character was what was going on.

So I think since we did not know this, a big majority of other people probably did not either. And I guess that would constitute a theoretical failure.

But I loved U2 in the 90s, and I dont think they did anything wrong, but to answer your question the way you have asked it, yes, I think MacPhisto was a failure.

P.S. Personally I disliked MacPhisto greatly and not because of the devil symbolism but because of the annoying voice, the time it took away from the music and Bono in make up = clown.

 

[scatteroflight]

Originally posted by U2LA:


P.S. Personally I disliked MacPhisto greatly and not because of the devil symbolism but because of the annoying voice, the time it took away from the music and Bono in make up = clown.

I second that, though I think I found the devil symbolism and some of the stuff Bono said in that character a bit disturbing.

Didn't he sing WOWY as MacPhisto? I would have absolutely hated that.



------------------
Your seven worlds collide
Whenever I am by your side
Dust from a distant sun
Will shower over everyone

-Crowded House

 

[truecoloursfly]

Hey 80s --
Your question was well-articulated...and timely.

I'm right in the middle of an essay all about MacPhisto, so part of me hesitates to reply for fear of "chatting" it all out of me, but the other part has already sunk her teeth in. I know you can only feed my ideas, not deplete them.
Did I get it? Well, yeah, but it never seemed an issue that I might not. Satire is an extremely dicey thing, in a way, a very personal thing. Having nothing to do with one's "depth" or sense of humour, necesaarily, you just can't know how it will "land" in any one person. Anyone who undertakes satire knows the risk that they may be taken literally. (Actually, the same can be said of any metaphoric endeavour.)

In a way, the whole of the 90s addressed the question, "What do you have when you have it all?" as only a pop superstar could address it. Or, as Popmart put it explicitly, Lookin' for to save my SOUL... The band's focus turned within, and they reported what they found. "The Devil Inside" comes to mind... Also, I can't change the world (which was their 80s output) but I can change the world in me -- their 90s output. That's how I took it all, and was enlightened by it. Staring At the Sun, too, addresses the weakness, the selfish ego -- which MacPhisto personified!

Should they have been more blatant? Well, in one sense, it doesn't get anymore blatant than that. But you're asking something different: should they have been more blatant about the "art" of it? Having chosen satire as their medium, they couldn't be. You said you'd read Screwtape: did you "get it"? It's a book, so most people did, I'd guess. (And they did give us that clue in the video, as Stockman pointed out.) MacPhisto's problem was more to do with U2's industry. People generally don't regard rock'n'roll as theatre. However, when Britney dances onstage with a snake, we don't necessarily expect she goes home and has sex with it, you know? It's obviously "showbiz." When Joan Baez sang about "my wife in Tennessee," ["The Night They Drove Old Dixie Down"], nobody thought she was gay.

It's harder to allow our rock'n'roll to be "showbiz" without thinking it's cheapened, somehow. U2 stepped outside the parameters of the rock industry by being blatant about the theatre in it. ZooTV was about as flagrant about being "art" as it's possible to be...and yet, they play to an audience that is not accustomed to suspending disbelief. Maybe all they needed to do was to say, expicitly, that Bono was --literally --playing "Devil's Advocate," maybe that would have helped. Pity as well, that the audience that really digs great musical theatre would probably dismiss the "popular" rock stars and their noisy rock concert...

I don't know if it's possible to determine whether they got their point across in any kind of "overall" sense. But I can't see the whole experiment as a failure, no. Any more than their earlier openness about their faith, which turned some people off, or their righteous anger that turned some people off. Or their childlike enthusiasm about American roots music, which turned some people off -- was Rattle & Hum a failure?

In the end, MacPhisto communicated a LOT about the illness of the soul, wehther or not we believed (feared)it was Bono's illness. Didn't he? And THAT is an artist's ultimate success.

I'm really curious about others' thoughts on this, thanks 80s.

Deb D


------------------
He set my feet upon a rock
made my footsteps firm

the greatest frontman in the world -- by truecoloursfly: http://www.atu2.com/news/article.src?ID=1575

 

[popsadie]

I would have to disagree with you on this one. Coming from the perspective of a fan that discovered U2 in the mid-late 90's...U2's use of irony and theater only made me more interested in the topics presented in their music. Before U2 I wouldn't have given much of listen at all to spiritual ideas presented in music, but after listening to both their questioning and critical 90's fare as well as their more emotionally open earlier material...I really became more interested in exploring the more academic side of christianity. This discovery really helped me...since before...I had almost felt I had to leave my brain at the church door....

 

[Crzy4Bono]

I totally agree with you, U2LA - I didn't get it at all. I am curious to hear from folks from Europe, though as to their opinion on this subject. I guess it has been my experience that Americans are not as attuned to sarcasm and irony in performance (I know, I know - it's a generalization) and I'm just curious if European audiences who get that a bunch more as a matter of course were more attuned to what U2 was trying to say.

That said, I really hated all the "characters" of the 90s - U2's strength is their connection with the audience and this just threw up a wall - making it a performance rather than an experience. Not a bad one, just different I guess.

------------------
She's gonna dream up a world she wants to live in / She's gonna dream out loud.
Visit my web page at www.u2page.com

 

[MissZooropa]

At my very first show I got to know MacPhisto. I was a new fan and I guess by the time of his appearence in the show I was already so blown away so I didn't really thought about what it was all about at that time.
I actually haven't had any problem about their "art", the theater. I don't know if I'm thinking too much but I kind of have got what they have been trying to say both during Zoo and Popmart. I have had my doubts, definatly, but somewhere I've been able to see what it's all have been about. But with a good help of reading interviews with them. I've been curious and really wants to know so I read alot about them, interviews and stuff.

Some of it though, as I see it, has been mainly for the press, the ones that go to the show to get a great show, not caring that much about the music and it's message and they got what they wanted. You can see that they have reached it when you read reviews where more is focused on what happened on the screens and the effects and how cool it was and how far this "boring" band during the 80's really got into the 90's well.

I think they tried to make us think, for ourselves, not serve it on a plate like they pretty much did during the 80's.

But answering your question, I'd say both yes and no, that MacPhisto was a failure. Maybe the charachter needed too much explanation even for the real fans but at the same time, he really made us think, at least me. Did he mean something? If so what? The questions you've been asking yourself, I guess. Still today, ten years later, MacPhisto is still confusing us and is the headline for a thread.

I got one great answer what it was all about in the book, just like you. Even if I haven't read the Screwtape letters (hadn't even heard about the book until I read about it now) it still helped.
And for the not so big fans and media MacPhisto was great, somethng special, something new with a fun attachment to the show, calling someone famous.

I guess I'm thinking too much, that's just me but I think most of what they do have some kind of undermeaning. I say most, not everything, like the muscleshirts for example, at least to me, that has no meaning more then for entertainment, pretty silly but suitable for Popmart. But things that you really start asking yourself if it has a meaning, it mainly has, that's at least what I've found out.

But I totally understand that the change between the 80's and the 90's must have been HUGE and confusing for already fans. For me it might have been easier to take since I got into them in spring 92 and didn't take it that serious at the time but have got to know and think about it now, later when I also have got to known 80's U2.

But all this is why I love U2, they make me think, what they try to say, who they are, who I am and how their music effects me. They challenge me as a human and my mind and my senses. This is why they are interesting.

*phew* Done!

 

[foray]

When I first saw a ZooTV concert on tape, I was scared of U2 because I thought they were satanic. I didn't even know that this band was the same one that gave us all those Joshua Tree songs. A friend of mine (churchie) remarked on the ZooTV maxims that flashed across the screen quickly, "This is all going to get into your subconscious!" (back then there was this whole back-masking and subliminal satanic messages in music scare)... So, no, MacPhisto et al didn't really work for me or my conservative friend. I remember however that Bono once said that the MacPhisto thing would appeal to Europeans more. Why? I dunno?

foray

 

[oliveu2cm]

On the other hand.. lol

I love Macphisto. I think he's an incredible character. I think Bono's portrayal of him is so clear and intense. I loved his mannerism, his voice, his symbolism. I loved the irony and the twist he threw in the U2 show. I loved the extremes he represented- going from Fly to Macphisto... what a pathetic disintegration, almost a vision of what can/will/does happen to rock stars if they aren't careful (and indeed, not only rock stars).

I'm reading a Frank McCourt book and there's a line in there "the devil you don't know is more dangerous than the devil you know" <-- totally paraphrasing, but that's the idea.

Basically, the AB/Zoo era is epitomized by confusion and helplessness and betrayal- who is the biggest betrayer of them all (I'd have to say Judas a close 2nd) than the Devil himself- one of God's own angels who fell. Talk about putting into visual what the themes of AB was about. (Edge said it in Flanagan's book, and betrayal was the first thing he said AB was about).

The Fly wasn't enough to carry AB. He could do the "celebrity" thing... but not the Love Is Blindness thing- he's too shallow of a character. He's down in hell, enjoying it! But Macphisto.. the senior devil.. he's lived it, he's the "tired old dried up" rock star.. and he's a complete jerk, dismissing people, living in shameless excess, milking the audience.. but what is he left with? love is blindness.

I know I just rambled there but I don't think Macphisto was a failure. I think he was perfect. I was not there through the transition from JT -> Zoo so I can't speculate on how that must have been, what a drastic change. But U2 is about challenging their audience, and I think Macphisto really did that. Sydney Zoo was the first thing I ever saw on TV about the band, and it all blew me away. There is no one else who could have finished ZooTV than Macphisto.

------------------
You see your love made complete

www.u2takemehigher.com

MPS: "Evil shouldn't look this good"

"The way I might look at you" ~Adam

 

[truecoloursfly]

Olive, I was hoping you'd post here.

And I'm sure that cynicism frightened many people. They didn't like to see this band (who they had been counting on to continue leading them spiritually) suddenly begin to delve deeper into themselves. And then there were those who followed the band and went with them on the journey through what seem like some of the darkest parts of their lives.
As I said, I wasn't there when the whole thing happened, but I find that listening to those albums helps me to understand that my period of questioning God and my values is something that other people have gone through. To me, it's kind of a comfort to see this whole time period. [hippy]

It's cool to hear that from someone who came after The Transformation

(which it truly was at the time). And I suspect your experience is the kind of "success" they were aiming for. All artists have to believe on some level that their experience is not unique, and that their "job" (compulsion, addiction, "I don't know how to do anything else," whatever

) is simply to distill the chaos of it into some kind of meaning. Which, in turn, might guide other people through the chaos.

Maybe the charachter needed too much explanation even for the
real fans
[careful...

]
but at the same time, he really made us think, at least me. Did he mean something? If so what? The questions you've been asking yourself, I guess. Still today, ten years later, MacPhisto is still confusing us and is the headline for a thread. [MissZooropa]

GREAT point.

scatteroflight, MacPhisto singing WOWY has quite an impact. Enough to push me to a whole essay on it... [I'll show you guys later.]

peace,
Deb D

------------------
He set my feet upon a rock
made my footsteps firm

the greatest frontman in the world -- by truecoloursfly: http://www.atu2.com/news/article.src?ID=1575

 

[melon]

I think the question that should be posed is if Christians have a sense of humor? MacPhisto was simply a life-like caricature of excess, and if you closely read the lyrics of the 90s albums, you see deeply religious beliefs in there.

It isn't exactly traditional Christianity, though. It reflected the self-styled Christianity that U2 expouses--highly critical of organized Christianity, but still faithful to Christ. But, like many who have these types of self-styled beliefs, one still cannot help but get angry here and there by the actions of those who call themselves "Christian." Nevertheless, it doesn't negate what they truly believe.

Anyway, I hope that my explanation here makes some sense.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[The Wanderer]

the MacPhisto character was brilliant, and I've always admired Bono for going through with it because it was misinterpreted by the media and fans; the real failure was the poor (or should I say lazy?) conception and enactment of PopMart's themes (lemons alone, don't get it done guys), it just seemed half-assed, maybe if they had had more time to prepare... still don't know what happened to the lotto balls (or music for that matter) for Playboy Mansion, which would have been a great opportunity to effectively push their themes, whatever they were...

yeah, MacPhisto... and your comments made perfect sense, melon

 

[hippy]

Originally posted by oliveu2cm:
The Fly wasn't enough to carry AB. He could do the "celebrity" thing... but not the Love Is Blindness thing- he's too shallow of a character. He's down in hell, enjoying it! But Macphisto.. the senior devil.. he's lived it, he's the "tired old dried up" rock star.. and he's a complete jerk, dismissing people, living in shameless excess, milking the audience.. but what is he left with? love is blindness.

There is no one else who could have finished ZooTV than Macphisto.

olivephisto said it best!

------------------
BONO: FOAD, Lawrence. Just FOAD. (LOL, Mona)

You can dream, so dream out loud!

Create Light, Create Unity, Create Joy, CREATE PEACE!

 

[in te domine]

Great topic.
I LOVED U2 so much before and after JT. When "Achtung Baby" came out,... I was caught totally off-guard. I was actually quite hurt. My U2... "The Only Band That Mattered". The band that HAD a political and spiritual message. The band that didn't "swagger and shake their fist at the crowd" (as Bono once said the band was not, in an 80's interview)... THAT U2, had abandoned ME and all of it's loyal followers that cared about the message and the hope that it's music brought, and not because the song was "cool" and a hit, or Bono was "hot".
...Boy, I guess I STILL have issues there, don't I?

I remember Bono being asked about this "new look U2" and how it might turn off his fans, and Bono smuggly saying (through his Fly shades), "If we lose some fans, too bad. We didn't need them anyway"

ouch.

I guess I didn't "get the joke". At least not at first, and then when I did understand.. I didn't find it very funny.

Did Bono overestimate the intelligence of his fans? ( or was *I* the only dimwit out there??). Did he realize he would now attract bored Bon Jovi fans or the juvenile "Satan Rocks! 666! OooOOoo, I'm sooo evil!" loser crowd (who took his MacPhisto character seriously)???

..because he sure did. People I knew who before, didn't think much of U2 but thought Vince Neil was God, were now U2 fans. Not for the lyrics as much as the attitude. What's that old Nirvana lyric?
"He's the one
Who likes all the pretty songs
And he likes to sing along
And he likes to shoot his gun
But he don't know what it means."

So my "fanatical" following of U2 ended with "Achtung Baby". I kept buying the music. I attended the concerts. I put up with "MacPhisto" and the band's apparent ongoing mid-life crisis (minus Larry). But it was just another rock band. The lyrics have always been there, but when its performed by guys my age who look like they buy their clothes at Gadzooks... the impact is lost.

I do know that U2 wanted to "shake off" nuts like myself who almost looked to them for "all the answers" during the R&H years.
I guess I don't blame them. I mean, who needs that kind of pressure.
They did a good job.
Just very recently have I taken more notice of them again. I don't look towards Bono for all the answers anymore, because I finally realized that there was a God, and it wasn't Bono (or me!).
Perhaps for their next CD, Bono will have the courage to leave behind the all-black clothing (which went out, when? 1989?) and the indoor shades (Bono, you're pudgy, and wrinkled and a bit worn after 26 years of hard drinking, smoking, partying, and screaming out your music.. You're an old man, and IT'S OK!!) Maybe the guys will take dressing tips from Larry. Maybe they can have the courage to lose all the smoke and mirrors and let their music define them again.
I mean, they "could lose a few fans, but too bad. They don't need them anyway."


Oh, and yes 80sU2Best, I do believe "MacPhisto" was a failure,ambitious and well intentioned, but still, a failure.

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by in te domine:
(Bono, you're pudgy, and wrinkled and a bit worn after 26 years of hard drinking, smoking, partying, and screaming out your music.. You're an old man, and IT'S OK!!)

I don't agree with anything you said, anyway, but I must insist, Bono is NOT pudgy.

Ant.

 

[Anthony]

While we're on the topic of MacPhisto (I didn't really know U2 until three years ago and so I can't really say if it was a failure or not, though purely from impressions, what I've read and the idea surrounding MacPhisto I'd say its far from a failure), I want to ask, did MacPhisto have a particular voice? Has it ever been on a recording? I keep hearing of references about his voice and how some find it irritating while others powerful, but what voice are you guys talking about?

Ant.

 

[oliveu2cm]

Originally posted by Anthony:
While we're on the topic of MacPhisto (I didn't really know U2 until three years ago and so I can't really say if it was a failure or not, though purely from impressions, what I've read and the idea surrounding MacPhisto I'd say its far from a failure), I want to ask, did MacPhisto have a particular voice? Has it ever been on a recording? I keep hearing of references about his voice and how some find it irritating while others powerful, but what voice are you guys talking about?

Ant.

hi anthony
yes macphisto had a particular voice, mannerisms, clothes, style.. etc.. I have some of, or at least one, of macphisto's infamous phone calls on my website. or actually it's him singing desire- you can get the sense of his voice from that

www.u2takemehigher.com

 

[in te domine]

Anthony, it's quite alright that you don't agree with what I said. It was my own little individual point of view.
If I am not mistaken, MacPhisto is a take off of "Screwtape" the wise old demon from "the Screwtape Letters" by C.S Lewis. Back in 1991, I had no idea that this was the case, and I suspect neither did many music fans.
This is where I say that MacPhisto failed.
Not many people "got it".

... and I do say that Bono is pudgey. My comment was not meant to be an insult. He's short; he's old; he's haggard... and I don't care. I think he is just fine.

 

[scatteroflight]

Originally posted by truecoloursfly:


scatteroflight, MacPhisto singing WOWY has quite an impact. Enough to push me to a whole essay on it... [I'll show you guys later.]

I'd be interested to see that...I've never seen video of him singing it in that character, but the idea just really bugs me!



------------------
Your seven worlds collide
Whenever I am by your side
Dust from a distant sun
Will shower over everyone

-Crowded House

 

[Anthony]

Originally posted by in te domine:
[B)... and I do say that Bono is pudgey. My comment was not meant to be an insult. He's short; he's old; he's haggard... and I don't care. I think he is just fine.[/B]

Oh, c'mon, he's not THAT old, what, forty years of age, hardly old. Yeah sure he' short, but for a forty year old he could look a lot more haggard. What would you call pudgy?

Ant.

 

[melon]

C'mon...Bono is still hot.

Melon

------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time

 

[Salome]

MacPhisto was great to watch even if you didn't get it (and to be honest I almost never get what Bono is trying to do while I'm at a concert, I just enjoy the thrill than)

same as Bono pulling up a girl on stage during the Elevation tour while they are playing With or Without You
could there be anything more sad then the image of the rock start rolling around with a beautiful young girl while on tour far away from his wife and kids?
singing "I can't live with or without you", "and you give yourself away" ??? (almost as good as the desolated MacPhisto singing this song during ZOOTV)

during the show it doesn't realy matter why Bono does what though
because the excitement of the show alone is enough
these are the things though why I still like to watch the released videos/dvd's for a long, long time

in conclusion: I enjoyed MacPhisto because he was great to watch (at least to me)
I love MacPhisto because of the way Bono used him to tell us the same stories he always did but in a completely different context

------------------
Salome
Shake it, shake it, shake it

 

[Diemen]

Originally posted by in te domine:
Maybe they can have the courage to lose all the smoke and mirrors and let their music define them again.

Apparently you haven't heard of this album called All That You Can't Leave Behind and the subsequent Elevation Tour.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by melon:
I think the question that should be posed is if Christians have a sense of humor? MacPhisto was simply a life-like caricature of excess, and if you closely read the lyrics of the 90s albums, you see deeply religious beliefs in there.

Melon, what does a sense of humor have to do with anything?
McPhisto and the whole glitz and glamour thing was not explained at the time, and I think it's very natural for people who were big time into U2 for their political and Christian message to be turned off by what U2 did in the 90s. I should know. I was a BIG U2 fan until Zooropa. I knew as much about U2 back then as most people do now. They were my favorite group. I liked them mainly for their Christianity, and also for their political messages, and their "simple" lifestyle. When they did the old switcheroo, it caught me and many others by surprise. I also remember when Bono said they they didn't need the old fans. That hurt, man. Melon, were you a fan of the band in the 80s?
If not, how can you say anything about "Christians not having a sense of humor", when you weren't even a fan when the change came? I know how young you are now, so if you were a fan of teh band through the 80s, you weren't a very old one, so you can't have much to say about "the change". I was 24 when Achtung Baby came around.

 

[sulawesigirl4]

Is irony still ironic if it has been explained?

 

[spanisheyes]

Yeah, what Bethany said.

Chris

 

[popsadie]

Oh come on...the glitz and irony were not explained at the time??...the lead singer was dressed up as the devil for goodness sake!...to me it takes a further logistical jump to see them as sudden devil worshippers.....

 

[in te domine]

Okay, okay. I take back the pudgey comment. Bono is just fine.
Diemen, of course I've heard of the new release and the tour.
You do have a point, most all the "bells and whistles" have been taken away.
I still like to see the guys (minus Larry) stop dressing like they buy
their clothes at "Fast Forward".

I guess there are "two camps" here. The older fans, like myself, who were there
during the early years ("B.M": before MacPhisto), and the younger fans, who first
noticed U2 in the 90's ("A.M": after MacPhisto).
I can relate to how 80sU2isBest feels, or should I say felt after Achtung Baby.
I truely feel that you had to have "been there" to know what it was like when
U2 pulled the ol' switcharoo. And I mean you had to be a die-hard fan, to know
the sting that was felt.

I know that U2 had once said that they did what they did because they just
couldn't handle the unfair and unrealistic expectations that their fans and their
critics had for them. They kind of blew themselves up, before the pressure
from all the hype and criticism blew them up. They became the court jesters so
they could still be around to sneak in really deep topics into their music, yet
not have the "God-rock/holier than thou/noble saints" appearance that critics
loved to take swings at, and fans loved to seek all of life's answers by.
I certainly can't sit here and blame them for "backing out" (as Bono once described
it in an early 90's interview). I just don't have the right.
... but I still think MacPhisto was misunderstood.

 

[80sU2isBest]

Originally posted by popsadie:
Oh come on...the glitz and irony were not explained at the time??...the lead singer was dressed up as the devil for goodness sake!...to me it takes a further logistical jump to see them as sudden devil worshippers.....

Who said anything about them being devil worshipers?
I said I liked them mainly for their Christianity and also for their political statements and "simple" lifestyle. When they made "the change", the simple lifestyle DEFINITELY went out the window, and politics took a back seat, and whether you like it or not, they said things and acted in ways that threw many Christians for a loop...and not just legalistic Christians either.