Did Bono contradict his 1993 self? Interesting ZooTV quote...

[Michael Griffiths]

Bono said around the time of HTDAAB's release that they have been interested recently in making relevant music that can fit into the fabric of the "folk" music of popular culture - ie, The Beatles, The Stones, and so forth. Music that resonates to the extent of becoming part of the public consciousness. And with the last two records, this certainly seems evident. They are an attempt at modern folk records. Plugged in folk music, yes, but folk music nonetheless when taken in this context. And ATYCLB has certainly succeeded to this end, it would seem.

Now, I remember an interview done on Much Music after the last Zoo TV show in 1993 in Tokyo. How startling it is in light of Bono's recent comments! However, he doesn't contradict himself - not quite anyway - as Bono, even back then, gave himself a little crack in the doorway (see bold). Very sly. I wonder if he realized, even then, how quickly U2 could go back to being "retrogressive". I wonder if he still considers this to be "boring"? I would venture to say he has changed his view on this... They definitely sound like two very different Bonos....

Bono, Tokyo, 1993:

"What we're trying to do is just push out the parameters of rock n' roll a little bit, because if rock n' roll is not progressive, you know... if it stays in the same place, it becomes folk music. And I think that white rock music at the moment has never been so dull. It's actually not just in the same place; it's actually retrogressive.... It's wonderful, and we may do it again...you know, just plug in electric guitar, bass and drums, but it is in a way your parents' music, and it is kind of...it is the folk music of the 90s. And that's boring. And black music, kids come out of Compton and the Bronx, are working with a new technology and creating a new kind of a music, new forms of music through rap and hip hop and whatever, and are just leaving these white, comfortable, GRUNGE kids, behind."

For the rest of the interview (be sure to also check out part 2!), here is the link:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=USeMtnuE2y4&mode=related&search=

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Also interesting to note the rap and hip hop references. This is obviously something that has stayed with the band up until this point. I find it ironic, also, that Bono became a big fan of Nirvana - arguably the kings of the "white, comfortable, grunge kids".

 

[Yahweh]

I actually have that interview on tape....but the music hes talking about is the grunge of the era such as Nirvana.

 

[Yahweh]

And I dont think U2 have retrogressed that much....there was also clips on that Year in POP show that say almost the same thing

 

[U2girl]

The retrogression started with Pop.

 

[CTU2fan]

Dear God, if Bono thought the grunge scene was boring & dull I'd hate to hear what he'd have to say about today's rock scene...

 

[discothequeLP]

Dear God, if Bono thought the grunge scene was boring & dull I'd hate to hear what he'd have to say about today's rock scene...

don't worry we've still got the killers

 

[Lancemc]

Grunge is boring. Thank god it died quickly.

 

[Reggie Thee Dog]

Well Grunge might have been boring to some, but it was a reaction to the 'excessive 80's' which was all about glossing over your problems and pretending everything was alright.

Grunge came along and made us all self-loathing. That, my friend is quite an achievement

 

[goincommando]

don't worry we've still got the killers

 

[cobl04]

What exactly does retrogression mean? Going backwards?

 

[doctorwho]

Dear God, if Bono thought the grunge scene was boring & dull I'd hate to hear what he'd have to say about today's rock scene...

When AB was released, I don't think Nirvana's album was officially out - I think it came out a week or so later. Then, shortly after that came "Ten" from Pearl Jam. Nirvana and Pearl Jam dominated the grunge sound - and the charts - but U2's style of rock presented a nice alternative. It was still rock (arguably AB has some of U2's most rocking tracks), but it wasn't grunge. So kids of the day had that alternative - and clearly all of them succeeded enormously.

But by '93, the success of those 1991 grunge albums created a TON of copycats. All we heard as grunge. It reminded me of 1978. Disco music had caught on so much so that even people like Rod Stewart and KISS were making disco songs! No wonder there was a disco backlash. Likewise, note the shelf life of grunge. Disco's early days were really '73 or so to 1980 (even some of 1981). Grunge lasted from about '91 to '96 or so. In other words, by 1993, Bono's comment about grunge made perfect sense - it no longer was this unique sound.

As for the music, while I agree that U2 really HAD to push the boundaries in 1990 and '91 when they were recording AB, by 2000, clearly the world had changed again. As evidenced by the massive success of ATYCLB, clearly the world was ready for a more "folk" album. In fact, had U2 tried to make a 2000 equivalent of AB, I think it would have flopped.

As for 2006/2007, I'm not sure. It seems that R&B is dominating - and not good R&B at that. Singers are just belting out notes, with little soul or passion (even though they think otherwise), over a rap song, which in turn has sampled loops from the disco era! Most odd to my ears. It's little wonder U2 and Coldplay and the Killers have enjoyed success lately - they are the only rock music that radio seems to allow. And it's also little wonder why U2 aren't straying too much from the sounds they created on ATYCLB and HTDAAB - despite U2's enormous success with those albums, radio stations still haven't changed their formats from R&B domination. It's almost as if U2 still has to fight to get their own sound heard again!

 

[ozeeko]

I never understood how the grunge era was retrogressive. To me, it was a great step forwards for rock. Think about it. What other era sounded like grunge before grunge. Answer? Nothing. Say what you will, but Nirvana, Soundgarden, Pearl Jam, Alice In Chains, The Pixies - they were all outstanding bands that had musicianship and lyrics to spare. I think if ever, now we have retrogressive bands. Seriously, most bands these days are trying to recreate the garage band sounds of the 70's and 80's and punk rock has become a one-dimensional hitmaking machine, which absolutley contradicts the original intent of punk rock, which was the rebel against the idea of what's popular and the norm.

 

[Yahweh]

Punk of the late 70s sounded an awful lot like grunge of the 90s if you ask me.

 

[ozeeko]

Punk of the late 70s sounded an awful lot like grunge of the 90s if you ask me.

Maybe the guitar distortion aspect of it. Yet, I don't see how Soundgarden's "Spoonman" or Pearl Jam's "Jeremy" or Alice In Chains' "Man In The BoX" sounded like late 70's punk music.

 

[U2DMfan]

Punk of the late 70s sounded an awful lot like grunge of the 90s if you ask me.

What in particular?
How old were you in 1992?

 

[Yahweh]

Old enough to see Nirvana and Pearl Jam and Sound Garden and every other Seattle copy cat band on TV and hear them on my radio every day. This was the era of music that I grew up in and quite frankly I think it was one of the worst ones out there.

Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Smashing Pumpkins along with a lot of other copy cat bands were making "angry" music as a rebelion of what was being done in the 80s much like Punk did in the 70's.

Nirvana and Pearl Jam were the 90s version of The Sex Pisols and The Clash, just much more widely played on the radio.

Brings to mind one of the best U2 lines ever.

They will want their money back if you are alive at 33...most of these bands didnt make it that far.

People that are too young to remember how much grunge was played on the radio and TV back then should be greatful, these songs sound good once in awhile but back then it was just pounded at you from all directions every single day of the week, even NIN back then was pretty grungy sounding compaired to later work.

 

[Screwtape2]

How would you define Grunge? I mean Pearl Jam didn't sound anything like The Smashing Pumpkins nor did Nirvana sound like Soundgarden, yet they all are considered Grunge.
I think Bono was attacking the artists that took the sound but didn't put a spin on it to make thier own unique sound. It is like rap where you had landmark artists like Public Enemy and Run DMC with something to say then a flood of new rappers that commercialized it. Those kinds of artists would fall under the category of wallpaper music as Bono called it. Bono wasn't being hypocritical because at the time Grunge had started to go towards the mainstream. Rebellious music in the mainstream loses it's purpose.

 

[ozeeko]

NIN didn't sound grungy in their later years? Their first album was like 80's synthpop with an industrial edge! Not at all grungy, they got grungier as they (he) went along! Anyway, your speaking in concepts rather than actual sound descriptions. Sure, they late 70's punk was rebelling against the fluff of the mainstream, much as the 90's grunge period was, but where was the sound similar? It was loud, sure, but the 90's grunge was a hell of a lot different than the punk of the 70's. For one thing, many bands in the 90's detuned their guitars so the sound was lower and more menacing, and the actual heavy attack was way louder. And Pearl Jam is still playing today, as well as members of Soundgarden, Smashing Pumpkins. I mean, with every trend u get the followers who were cashing in on the scene, u got that with the punk movement, u got that with grunge. But don't try to tell me there weren't any original artists that were born out of the grunge movement.

 

[U2DMfan]

Old enough to see Nirvana and Pearl Jam and Sound Garden and every other Seattle copy cat band on TV and hear them on my radio every day. This was the era of music that I grew up in and quite frankly I think it was one of the worst ones out there.

Nirvana, Pearl Jam, Soundgarden, Smashing Pumpkins along with a lot of other copy cat bands were making "angry" music as a rebelion of what was being done in the 80s much like Punk did in the 70's.

Nirvana and Pearl Jam were the 90s version of The Sex Pisols and The Clash, just much more widely played on the radio.

Brings to mind one of the best U2 lines ever.

They will want their money back if you are alive at 33...most of these bands didnt make it that far.

People that are too young to remember how much grunge was played on the radio and TV back then should be greatful, these songs sound good once in awhile but back then it was just pounded at you from all directions every single day of the week, even NIN back then was pretty grungy sounding compaired to later work.

Well ok, so you were pretty young, because you just gave the 'dimestore' version of events. That's cool though.

 

[Yahweh]

Grunge is classified by me as white rock boys in a garage with capri pants and plad shirts making music with loud guitar that sounds of nothing but distortion in a bad way, very few listenable notes the guitars sound the same throughout the song....angry shallow lyrics written by mostly mid to upper class white boys that really have nothing to be angered about. The grunge idea was worse then the actual grunge sound was.

I totally agree with what Bono said in 1993, it was very true in the era back then black music was leaving white music behind....and its still happening today only to a lesser extent because rap has become very redundent itself, thats why you are getting these mixings of rock and rap music crap like limp bizkut.

Even Radioheads first album Pablo Honey was very grungy in the form it was in.

 

[Yahweh]

Actually I wasnt that young unless you call high school young.

But you can listen to grunge all you want I will state my opinion just as I did back then that it is one of the most redundant forms of music that was ever "created", and a dark age for the evolution of rock. Thats my opinion, and by the way Nirvana is one of the most over rated bands of all time.

 

[U2DMfan]

How would you define Grunge?

I'd define it as a term for those music writers who didn't really want to associate themselves with the ilk of Led Zeppelin, could easily give a 'thumbs up' to an album that was assigned to a particular 'scene' as opposed to being just fuckin' rock and roll.
About the only thing Nirvana and Alice In Chains had in common was a cultural and musical stigma and a home town, or a 'scene'.

The point I was trying to make was, you couldn't have lived thru that time (in the music) and aped some of the rhettoric that people tend to spew, it would make your throat curdle and you'd nearly vomit even with the mention of the phrase "grunge". It is only a revisionist movement that lumps in Nirvana and Pearl Jam, in 1992 , hell in 1996, they were different bands with different camps, often times very confrontational. 10 years later, it's all "grunge", there isn't a bigger load of crap out there in the musical universe in my humble opinion.

I associate myself mostly with these bands, all of them, I get tired of the nauseating stereotypical revisionist history, yes, I am in the minority, but I'll say once more, you couldn't have been in the midst of that rock and roll revolution and spew some of the crap that gets spewed unless you are just miming some Vh1 special that never really got it in 1994 much less 2006. I don't care if it sounds condescending, you want some truth, I'll give you my truth, at the least it's in my heart.

In other words, spare me, please. Fuck, talk about anything else with authority.

 

[ozeeko]

that is seriously the worst argument against grunge that i have ever heard. a bunch of white boys rebelling against nothing, because they're "white" obviously and therefore have nothing to say about anything. So when Eddie Vedder (a white man) penned the lyrics to "Alive" (a song about his dead father that he never knew existed until it was too late), he should've stopped writing and instead realized that he was a white man wearing a plad shirt and capri pants- therefore, he had nothing to be upset about.

 

[U2DMfan]

Actually I wasnt that young unless you call high school young.

But you can listen to grunge all you want I will state my opinion just as I did back then that it is one of the most redundant forms of music that was ever "created", and a dark age for the evolution of rock. Thats my opinion, and by the way Nirvana is one of the most over rated bands of all time.

It was never more than just rock and roll, period.
Who assigns more signifigance to it, the bands? Or you who read a magazine that promised something you didn't see? Give me a break. Nirvana was overrated, not by the likes of those who get their niche in the grand scheme, but my a pop culture who wants to annoint them as the saviours of rock. Nobody I know ever thought this in 1994, it became mythology when people tried to explain their success away. It was always just rock and roll.

Rock was horrid in the early 1990's, it was awful. Terrible.
A slew of bands killed off the hair bands, it was a movement in the culture it wasn't "Teen Spirit", tons of bands came out of Seattle before and after, "Grunge" was the fashion of the day, why do people still repeat it? Because that's their reference, if you repeat this, I can only ask that maybe you were too young and are parroting a Vh1 special. If you were old enough, maybe you just were part of the old crowd who "didn't get it". Nothing to get, sincere rock and roll, these days U2 grapples with the dilemma, some don't even see it right in front of their own face.
What does sincerity mean anymore?

 

[ozeeko]

I sincerely believe that every musical era has its positives and negatives. The 90's grunge era had its standout bands, much like the late 70's era had its standouts. And both those eras also had crap that was merely hitching a ride to the path already forged. I just think it's stupid to link the 90's grunge to the 70's punk just because of rebellion or noise volumne. Songwriting-wise, there was a lot different between both genres.

 

[Yahweh]

Like I said go ahead and listen to it, personally I would rather take The Police or REM, rather then Nirvana or Pearl Jam, the lyrics may look good on a piece of paper but the way the music was written was truely boring. The arangements and intermentation of the time period is what was truely dull and still is dull to this day. Having said that music has taken even a further step backwards generally in the 2000's.

Grunge truely was the elevator music of that time period, as disco was in the 70s, and syth was in the 80s.

Im not stopping you from listening to it go right ahead and listen to it. It doesnt suit my ear and never will. I am glad U2 were pushing those boundries when they were because the worst thing that U2 could have done was become what was being played on the radio back in those days.

 

[U2DMfan]

that is seriously the worst argument against grunge that i have ever heard. a bunch of white boys rebelling against nothing, because they're "white" obviously and therefore have nothing to say about anything. So when Eddie Vedder (a white man) penned the lyrics to "Alive" (a song about his dead father that he never knew existed until it was too late), he should've stopped writing and instead realized that he was a white man wearing a plad shirt and capri pants- therefore, he had nothing to be upset about.

Yes, he was just a fashion trendsetter (fucking people do believe that). As the revisionists and the horrid ass pop culture shows in 2006 will write, with their stupid-ass "I love the 90's" programs, would anybody who really understood it ever appear on such a lame-ass show? The people who didn't quite understand a mainstream return to a sincere rock and roll revolution, it's all about shirts and pants, fucking assholes.

And again, call it "grunge". Nobody I knew ever liked that fucking term, it meant nothing, it has even worse connotations today.
Watch the film "Hype", that's a pretty fun movie, that doesn't tell you the whole story and nothing ever would, I don't profess to have the whole story, but I know what is bullshit. The bottom line is a SLEW of bands kicked rock and roll on it's ass, and it was only partially done in by Nirvana, who were no more like Soundgarden than they were liek Heart.

 

[ozeeko]

Like I said go ahead and listen to it, personally I would rather take The Police or REM, rather then Nirvana or Pearl Jam, the lyrics may look good on a piece of paper but the way the music was written was truely boring. The arangements and intermentation of the time period is what was truely dull and still is dull to this day. Having said that music has taken even a further step backwards generally in the 2000's.

Grunge truely was the elevator music of that time period, as disco was in the 70s, and syth was in the 80s.

Im not stopping you from listening to it go right ahead and listen to it. It doesnt suit my ear and never will. I am glad U2 were pushing those boundries when they were because the worst thing that U2 could have done was become what was being played on the radio back in those days.

How about this, I like The Police, R.E.M. and many grunge bands all the same. Imagine that! Why are the arrangements boring? Why do the lyrics only look good on a peice of paper (have u ever looked at old R.E.M. lyrics on paper without music = talk about reeking of pretension and incoherence). What is your argument? That grunge sucks? Present some backbone to ure argument other than "i like the Police more". I like the Police too!

 

[U2DMfan]

Like I said go ahead and listen to it, personally I would rather take The Police or REM, rather then Nirvana or Pearl Jam, the lyrics may look good on a piece of paper but the way the music was written was truely boring. The arangements and intermentation of the time period is what was truely dull and still is dull to this day. Having said that music has taken even a further step backwards generally in the 2000's.

Grunge truely was the elevator music of that time period, as disco was in the 70s, and syth was in the 80s.

Im not stopping you from listening to it go right ahead and listen to it. It doesnt suit my ear and never will. I am glad U2 were pushing those boundries when they were because the worst thing that U2 could have done was become what was being played on the radio back in those days.

Well, I wasn't trying to convince you to listen to anything, I was just going off on a rant for the sake of my own entertainment's purposes.

The point I was trying to make was that so called "grunge" was just rock and roll, like any other.

U2 defied the mainstream when they were playing huge stadiums with psuedo-glam rock back then.

The retrospect makes it seem even more brilliant. U2 will never have been better. I hope they want to defy again.