(02-13-2005) U2's midlife crisis - Chicago Tribune*

[HelloAngel]

U2's midlife crisis


By Greg Kot
Tribune music critic


It will be difficult to miss the presence of U2 Sunday night at the Grammy Awards. There will be Bono singing the Beatles' "Across the Universe" with an all-star cast, and the band cranking out a presumably live version of its thrice-nominated single "Vertigo."

It wasn't always so. A decade ago, U2 couldn't be bothered with the Grammys, or any other kind of promotional event that smacked of salesmanship. In 1993, U2 turned down an offer to perform at the Grammys, and the Edge and Bono didn't even bother to show up for the ceremony when "Achtung Baby" was nominated for album of the year (eventually losing out to Eric Clapton's "Unplugged"). The band didn't appear on television talk shows or Super Bowl halftimes to hype their albums, and they steered clear of corporate tie-ins, refusing to license their music for television commercials.

Now, U2 appears on "Saturday Night Live," shows up at the opening of former President Bill Clinton's library and rolls through Manhattan in a flatbed truck blasting a song, all in the name of promoting its latest album, "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb" (Interscope).

Most incongruously, in the weeks before the album was released last November, U2 struck a deal with Apple to star in a commercial for the computer manufacturer's portable music player, the iPod. In addition, Apple released a special-edition iPod that enabled buyers to purchase (for $99.99, after cashing in a $50 coupon) the band's entire catalog, plus bonus tracks. The band, which once prided itself on creating an enigmatic visual presence, thanks primarily to the work of their collaborator Anton Corbijn, had suddenly become an advertising coup for one of the world's most visible corporations.

"Bono said for so long he wasn't going to let the corporate monster swallow him, but he's in the belly of the beast now," says one disappointed fan, Donna McClain, 34, a Los Angeles schoolteacher who has attended 83 U2 shows since 1983. "You watch the Super Bowl, and U2's music is playing. You turn on the TV, and they're an iPod ad. It wasn't what they stood for when they came out. It seemed like their music meant something, it had more heart behind it. Now it's just another product."

It's all about survival in a short-attention-span industry, says Jimmy Iovine, chairman of U2's label, Interscope Geffen A&M Records, and producer of some of the band's landmark '80s recordings. U2's members are in their 40s and the band has been in existence for 25 years, a veritable dinosaur that is about to be inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame next month. Yet the majority of the record-buying public is under age 25, most too young to remember U2 classics such as "The Joshua Tree" or "Achtung Baby." Like any band that hits rock 'n' roll middle age, U2 is grappling with the question of how to stay relevant in an industry that caters to youth.

"When we were kids, doing a TV ad, appearing on the Super Bowl halftime or singing at the Grammys would be a bad move for credibility, but not anymore," says Iovine, who adds that the band turned down three $20 million TV ad offers from other corporations before agreeing to the Apple deal because it "fit what they wanted to do aesthetically." He insists that the band received no money for the ad, which essentially served as a commercial for the new album while associating it with a "cool product that's a mainline right to a younger audience."

To read the entire article, please visit: http://www.chicagotribune.com/featu...y?coll=chi-leisurearts-hed&ctrack=3&cset=true

 

[ElectricalVoice]

If U2 didn't show up on some of these shows today - they would be forgotten. It's the way the business works today. It's not the same now, that it was for 15 years ago. If U2 continued the way they did things back then, U2 would have fallen off the wagon long time ago.

 

[Val]

Agree

 

[jpjames]

If U2 didn't show up on some of these shows today - they would be forgotten. It's the way the business works today. It's not the same now, that it was for 15 years ago. If U2 continued the way they did things back then, U2 would have fallen off the wagon long time ago.

U2 were so big in late 80s they never had to do anything they didn't wanna. Has the music industry really changed that much?

 

[zooholland]

well i dont know about you but i surely dont mind them performing anywere ...grammys, brooklyn bridge (seroiusly wouldnt have ANY clue why someone would complain about that gig), superbowl, i dont mind got them all on mp3 LOL

And why shouldnt they be allowed to make a little (might be an understatement!) money on the way....I mean you dont have to buy the Ipod..

Its very easy to accuse U2 of being in the corporate mosters belly...Just try to stay on top for so long, there will always be someone who is gonna say you are just doing it for the money..

I kind of hope they do cause that would mean they keep touring for a very long while to come...

 

[Marusa]

If U2 didn't show up on some of these shows today - they would be forgotten. It's the way the business works today. It's not the same now, that it was for 15 years ago. If U2 continued the way they did things back then, U2 would have fallen off the wagon long time ago.

Of course

what is the point of being great if ppl cannot hear or see that, or don't even know your work!?!?

 

[U2girl]

U2 appeared at the Grammys when they won Zooropa (I remember reading the camera showed Bono lighting a cigar) and they did MTV awards in 1992 and 1993 - with Garth drumming and Edge singing Numb. And they were at the Grammys when they won for Joshua Tree - so no, they were not too cool for that. And I distinctively remember seeing a LOT of their videos on MTV in the time of Achtung Baby.

Well said, Jimmy Iovine. U2 is over the second the younger fans stop coming and they would only be known for "being the band that made Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby". Then they will really be dinosaurs.
(btw, their midlife crisis was Pop)

 

[Val]

I feel the article was very negative, and will just let it roll. Tonight will belong to U2 no matter who wins, and I for onewill enjoy it!

 

[Tennis05]

Well said everyone. Anyone who is a fan knows that U2 doesn't do these things for the money. Why? They don't need to! Secondly, they want to be the biggest band in the world so let them flaunt it. Also, this is the most charitable band I know of and they let fans share their concerts through vid cameras, phones,etc. How many bands let that happen?

 

[Tennis05]

"If U2 took a crap on a plate and sold it, I would call it what it is: Shit!
HTDAAB is gold!"
Well put, ElectricalVoice. It is a beautiful thing.

 

[kakvox]

I am so sick of these Chicago writers thinking they know it all when it comes to U2. Since HTDAAB came out, nothing but bad press has been released from these guys. Just as U2 is set to perform on the Grammys, why must someone write up a story about U2 catering only to youth? Umm, the Grammys are filled with all kinds of performers for all ages and music lovers. Perhaps since Greg Kot's pet band, Wilco, isn't even in the running, he feels the need to jump those who are going to be there. I think he needs something better to occupy his time, perhaps a Ray Charles memorial article or something.

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

A decade ago....U2 were all over the Grammy's. In 1994-95, Bono said his "fuck up the mainstream" speech and delivered his passioned Rock and Roll HOF induction speech for Bob Marley. Didn't U2 also put a song on the "Batman Forever" soundtrack a decade ago?

Is this guy old enough to remember?

 

[kakvox]

I wrote Greg Kot a nice little email in response to his article. I just don't see why this is a news-worthy article on the day of the grammys. I just don't. It's just something to stir up the pot of indie kids everywhere. Greg Kot is sooo old and he thinks he is underground. What an a-hole.

 

[Foxxern]

It's an interesting article, and while I don't agree with it entirely, I do seem to think it often seems like U2 are trying too hard to remind people that they are around and that they want to be relevant. I don't know that there is anything specifically wrong with the music itself, even if it may not be as out there as a lot of the stuff they did in the 90s. If they want to have more of a pop influence, that's fine with me. I like the songs, though not as much as the stuff from JT and AB... just my opinion. That said, I think U2 need to get away from the influences of Clear Channel, Ticketmaster, and their own poorly-run fan club (bring back Propaganda--if it ain't broke, don't fix it!). This is hurting the hardcore fanbase who has supported the band for decades, and pandering to the media and scalpers. The article tends to finger the poor reaction of fans and the media to Pop as the start of this whole thing. And let's face it, regardless of how much the band defends the album (I also love it), they just weren't satisfied with the sales figures of either the album or of Popmart. They needed a way to avoid fading into obscurity and irrelevance, and I suppose a bigger push commercially was their solution.

The parts of the article, few as they were, which criticized the conservative nature of ATYCLB and HTDAAB, I didn't agree with so much. There have always been pop hooks on U2 albums. What I did agree with was the unfortunate preference of gaining more fans over satisfying fans who have been the backbone of what the band is all about. I'm all about getting younger fans into the band--I guess I'm a younger one myself at 23. But there should be a way to do that without alienating other fans.

 

[caisenma]

good article.

 

[L03VIk]

good article.

And that was your FIRST post here? Agreeing with a man who only writes articles to diss U2.

BS!

 

[STING2]

When U2 first formed as a band, they went on EVERY TV program they could! They did this through out the early 1980s in every country they went to. The Movie Channel SHOWTIME sponsered the Red Rocks show, and got a selection of songs to show when ever they wanted to. MTV has sponsered all of U2's tours since the Unforgettable Fire tour, although I don't think MTV or VH1 will be sponsering VERTIGO.

Its U2 did not do Saturday Night live and some of the late night shows until recently, but thats about it and only in the USA. They always did similar type shows in other countries.

The main difference between 1987 and today, is RADIO and MTV. RADIO gave U2 songs far more spins in 1987, then they are doing in 2005. Its almost impossible for U2 songs to get enough airplay to enter the top 20 in the USA market. RADIO has kind of shut them out.

MTV no longer plays Video's, with a few exceptions. Same with VH1. In 1987, a video in heavy rotation on MTV and VH1 could be seen every hour all day long. MTV was like a radio station that everyone acrossed the country watched and when people in Vermont saw your video, they also saw it in San Diego and Alaska. Its true that depending on what type of cable tv you have, you may get some of the extra MTV type channels, but most people do not. MTV2 would be the channel most would likely get and they play mainly, RAP, HIP HOP and R&B. I got to see the video's from ATYCLB eventually on the music channels four years ago. This time for HTDAAB, the only way I have been able to see the video's is through the internet.


The journalist seems to be ignorant of these facts and seems like he has an old axe to grind. Not that this is really new either. There were journalist who marginlized the impact and strength of Joshua Tree, tried to crucify the band with Rattle and Hum, and spit on them for the whole ZOO TV and Achtung Baby era, asking "what happened to that great honest band that made the Joshua Tree".

 

[Shaliz]

It will never cease to amaze me how people will go out of their way to say negative things about a band who is still at the top of their game. I guess maybe this guy is uncomfortable with the idea that a group can still be the best and biggest in the world after 25 years.

I don't see how getting out there and promoting your music, giving people of all ages a chance to experience it, can possibly be viewed as selling out or a "midlife crisis".

 

[Marusa]

It will never cease to amaze me how people will go out of their way to say negative things about a band who is still at the top of their game. I guess maybe this guy is uncomfortable with the idea that a group can still be the best and biggest in the world after 25 years.

I don't see how getting out there and promoting your music, giving people of all ages a chance to experience it, can possibly be viewed as selling out or a "midlife crisis".

exactly my point

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Well said, STING2, U2girl, and Reggie Thee Dog.

Personally, I'm sick of this whole thing about how if music is in commercials, or if people appear at certain events, they're selling out or they've lost credibility or whatever. Especially considering that some of the people who say that stuff would probably wind up doing similar things if they were put into those situations themselves. I'm not saying musicians should be greedy little snots-I'm not a fan of those who care only about money and nothing else myself, but if they want to make a little bit of money here and there, I can't fault them for that, especially when you consider how much of that money that they've earned over the years they've donated to charities. If money were the sole focus for them, they wouldn't give any of it to anyone for any reason. It just seems like musicians can't do anything anymore without somebody calling them a sell-out, and it's just lame.

U2 still enjoy doing what they're doing, that's the impression I'm getting from them. And about the sound of U2's new album, how some people aren't happy with it and some are-well, that's what you get when you're into a band who's as versatile as U2. They're gonna do tons of different kinds of music. And some of it you'll like, some of it you won't, that's just how it is.

Originally posted by Foxxem
But there should be a way to do that without alienating other fans.

What is it that they're doing that's alienating the older fans?

Angela

 

[Bono's shades]

I don't see anything wrong with U2 playing the Grammys and am looking forward to seeing them there tonight, but I do agree that the band is trying just a little too hard to promote themselves these days, and are doing things I never thought they would do when I first became a fan in the 1980s. I understand the nature of the music industry has changed, but U2 are already super-rich and living legends. It's not like they are going to go to the poorhouse or be relegated to "Where Are They Now?" on VH1 status if their latest album doesn't sell a gazillion copies. I'd rather U2 sell a few less CDs in exchange for not having to see them let their music be used in a commercial (an iPod is still a product, I don't care what anyone says) and do all this cross-promotion with the NFL (what the hell does U2 have to do with football anyway?)

 

[rileybug]

Interesting

U2's first American TV appearance was the Tomorrow show with Tom Snyder in 81 I think. I have it on tape, as well as the other very early TV show appearances from Germany, Japan etc. They had no problem appearing on TV then either. It gives US, the fans, a chance to see them. What is wrong with that? Nothing at all.

Now, this Patty Culliton, I'm not at all surprised to see her turn on the band. I remember her from the early 90's on Prodigy. She would send birthday gifts to Bono's KIDS!!! She would visit Principle Management offices in New York. She would send letters to Bono at his home. I repeat, she would send *personal* letters to Bono, *at his home*! Among other weird stuff. That was an obsessed fan if I ever saw one. They probably stopped responding to her letters and phone calls so she feels slighted... not surprised to see her quoted there, AT ALL. I'm just surprised it wasn't sooner.

 

[Foxxern]

What is it that they're doing that's alienating the older fans?

Angela

Um, are you serious? Have you managed to miss all the complaints on here regarding ticket prices and ticket availability? I mean, I wasn't even all that pissed off about it myself, as I got pretty much what I wanted. But I definitely sympathize with those who were shut out and feel they deserve much better.

 

[doctorwho]

U2 appeared at the Grammys when they won Zooropa (I remember reading the camera showed Bono lighting a cigar) and they did MTV awards in 1992 and 1993 - with Garth drumming and Edge singing Numb. And they were at the Grammys when they won for Joshua Tree - so no, they were not too cool for that. And I distinctively remember seeing a LOT of their videos on MTV in the time of Achtung Baby.

Well said, Jimmy Iovine. U2 is over the second the younger fans stop coming and they would only be known for "being the band that made Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby". Then they will really be dinosaurs.
(btw, their midlife crisis was Pop)

Thank you U2girl! It seems that some of these older fans - like that school teacher mentioned in the article who's seen them a ridiculous 83 times - have selective memory. They forget the numerous appearances U2 did on TV shows in Europe before JT struck it big. They forget that U2 were present for all the award shows you mentioned above. They forget that Larry did a Harley commercial in the late 80's. They forget the remixes that appeared as early as 1982.

1987 is a whopping 15 years ago. In the music industry, that's several generations of music. During that time, we saw bubblegum pop (Debbie Gibson) and hair bands (Poison and G'n'R)). Rock hair bands arguably led to grunge. The harder edge of grunge led to techno (Prodigy, Chemical Brothers). As that started getting old, girl bands (Spice Girls) and small boy bands (Hanson) were spawned. Those led to the return of bubblegum pop with numerous boy bands (N'Sync) and pop stars (Britney). Bubblegum pop has a very short life span and people wanted more meaningful music - hence the popularity of R&B which supposedly has soul. Throughout all of this, we saw rap grow and grow in popularity - where it now dominates the charts.

Unfortunately, during this time, basic rock really started sliding away. There are no R.E.M.'s, Cure's, Police, Smiths', Clapton's or Plant's dominating the music scene. Green Day is really punk - and arguably U2's biggest song off of HTDAAB has that punk feel to it. But even with Green Day and U2, that's it on the rock front. The rest of the U.S. charts is dominated by R&B and rap. So things really have changed tremendously. If U2 didn't advertise, they wouldn't be recognized.

I agree completely with U2's advertising - why spend several years of your life making what you feel is some of your best work only to have it ignored by the short attention spans of people? Why have it sell a few hundred thousand copies and then be put in the "discount music bins"? A little advertising did wonders for U2. And advertising with Apple isn't being in the "monster of the beast" - rather, it presented music fans with a LEGAL way of downloading music. Sure it advertised U2 - but is that any different than an ad in Best Buy or music store?

Some people hold so tightly to their values and beliefs that they lose touch with the world. One can make outstanding music that still touches the soul, while getting the message out to the masses. In other words, one can have both and still not "sell out".

 

[doctorwho]

Um, are you serious? Have you managed to miss all the complaints on here regarding ticket prices and ticket availability? I mean, I wasn't even all that pissed off about it myself, as I got pretty much what I wanted. But I definitely sympathize with those who were shut out and feel they deserve much better.

I'm an older fan and I don't feel alienated at all. Propaganda didn't always come through (it flat out failed for me on the third leg of the Elevation tour) and didn't always come up with outstanding tickets (had some nosebleeds for a good chunk of $$). But I also had some good tickets too. I just think some fans were a bit spoiled and felt this would continue. But as U2 and the 'net grew in popularity, it makes sense that things would be more difficult this time.

Are the tickets a lot? Sure. However, I look at other artists and realize that U2 is "cheap" compared to acts like Madonna, who charged $300+ for tickets close to the stage (as opposed to $49.50 U2 is charging).

And while the fiasco of getting U2.com membership and then obtaining tickets online was horrific, I don't feel that this should alienate any fan, much less only older fans. It just shows that despite the technology, there's a LONG way to go to get things running smoothly.

 

[rileybug]

And another thing..

I just wanted to add that if you want to see why U2 are doing all this and the result... head over to atu2, there is the article about fans going to see their first concert... Read the forum they link to... and get excited again. There are alot of new fans from ATYCLB, but it seems alot more new fans due to HTDAAB... I love it. I love this music and these guys so much that I WANT them to have new fans! My 13 year old niece will be going to her first U2 concert in San Diego... guess why? She's a fan because I exposed her to them! While her friends are into Avril Lavigne and Simple Plan, she's listening to and LOVING U2.

I'm a die-hard fan since 1983 myself, yet I don't feel U2 OWES me anything. If I want to go to a U2 concert, I will find a way. No matter what. I don't rely on some fan club presale. I got lots of great tickets through Propaganda on earlier tours (as good as 4th row), but they NEVER guaranteed anything then either, I never relied on it then. I always got extra tickets by calling Ticketmaster, just in case. And I'm a U2.com member, because I want to be a U2.com member! Because I want to have access to exclusive stuff and all that, not just a CHANCE at presale tickets. And if all else fails, rest assured that there will be scalpers outside the venue an hour before the show DESPERATE to get any amount of money for their tix. Oh yeah, and I'm one of those people that, If I have exhausted all other avenues, then I'm happy just sitting outside the venue listening to what I can. Yep! Never had to do it but... that's what I would do.

Also, if you want to blame someone for mismanagement of Propaganda, U2.com, the tour routing, the Ticketmaster affiliation, Clear Channel affiliation etc. Them why not blame, um, perhaps the MANAGER? I don't see nearly enough of this. Paul McGuiness is their MANAGER. HE is responsible for all of the business side of U2. You know, the MANAGING part! In my opinion, he should be replaced.

And you know, I fully expect bad reviews of the concerts when they start. There is simply nothing U2 can do to satisfy some people. If "In The Name Of Love Party Girl Culliton" turned against them, then expect the bad reviews people... prepare for some serious "U2 no longer any good live" type of nastiness.

 

[imogen]

I just don't get it when people imply U2 sold out or something to produce an album that had 4 or 5 hits on it.

I mean.... Passengers.... anyone????

Some people just aren't happy no matter what happens.

 

[Moonlit_Angel]

Um, are you serious? Have you managed to miss all the complaints on here regarding ticket prices and ticket availability? I mean, I wasn't even all that pissed off about it myself, as I got pretty much what I wanted. But I definitely sympathize with those who were shut out and feel they deserve much better.

Actually, yeah, I did miss out on it, 'cause my computer had a virus that shut it down for the last few weeks, so I've missed out on all the news regarding the ticket problems here, I'm just now hearing about it. And even now, I'm still a little confused as to what exactly happened.

I would say, also, any ticket problems aren't always the band's fault. My sister's said that ticket places can have problems with scalpers hacking in and screwing around with things, or the venues can screw things up, or things along that line-she's seen that happen before with people she knows who've tried to get tickets to things. To automatically blame the artist themselves isn't always fair, 'cause it's not always within their control.

Angela

 

[Saracene]

I understand the nature of the music industry has changed, but U2 are already super-rich and living legends. It's not like they are going to go to the poorhouse or be relegated to "Where Are They Now?" on VH1 status if their latest album doesn't sell a gazillion copies. I'd rather U2 sell a few less CDs in exchange for not having to see them let their music be used in a commercial (an iPod is still a product, I don't care what anyone says) and do all this cross-promotion with the NFL (what the hell does U2 have to do with football anyway?)

Sure, they probably wouldn't be relegated to "Where Are They Now?", but I think they want to be more than a "living legend" and have people who come to their concerts want to listen to their new stuff as well as the songs that made them legendary. And IMO it's a dubious compliment altogether; how many "living legends" are out there whose new albums are still big events?

 

[verte76]

It would have been stupid not to promote the album with Apple. They would have been arrogant as hell to assume they could just sell an album on name recognition. Iovine's right, and the writer of the article is out to lunch on a UFO.