Clayton Hints of New Direction on Next Record

[Zoots]

Originally posted by U2girl
"It made for an interesting record but it wasn't really a complete record," Clayton now says of Pop. "It's always nice to do those experiments, but sometimes you have to make sure you have a song there."

Clueless Pop hater!

[Zoomerang96]

the article and clayton's comments with it, totally underline the fact that u2 post 2000 have produced safe, tame radio-rock.

[Zoomerang96]

Originally posted by U2girl
"It made for an interesting record but it wasn't really a complete record," Clayton now says of Pop. "It's always nice to do those experiments, but sometimes you have to make sure you have a song there."

the funny thing about u2girl, is her knee-7erk reactions.

unable to defend one of her favourite albums from numerous people who despise it for it's lack of ambition, she resorts to gloating whenever someone says something to the effect of pop not being quite as good as it should be.

it's a schoolyard tactic, really.

students in fifth grade are playing football, and one says to the other "beckham sucks!!! he got a red-card!!! fucker!!!"

and the other replies by saying "yeah, well i guess that's why he's one of the most recognizable athletes in the entire world, right?"

similiarly, a kid with a gretzky 7ersey on the ice gets mocked by other kids who hate the rangers and retort "gretzky sucks ass...he can't even skate!!"

in response, he says "he might not have the nicest skating style, but doesn't he have hundreds of points more than anyone else in the history of the nhl?"

look through the threads here at interference, and look for all her responses. they're always the same. plus, it irritates her to no end when people contradict her divine opinion. 7ust ask me...she blocked me so she can't read any of my posts. that's the reaction of someone with absolutely no interest in hearing anyone's opinions but her own.

-p. wned

[Layton]

Originally posted by Zoomerang96
the article and clayton's comments with it, totally underline the fact that u2 post 2000 have produced safe, tame radio-rock.

What's safe about risking one's reputation and legacy as alternative rock legends by using pop ideas to make themes for difficult and tragic times easier to digest?

[Zoomerang96]

"alternative rock legends"?

ALTERNATIVE???

no.

so the question isn't even ligit.

[Layton]

LOL------Just use Rock legends, then. We'll debate alternative, later.

[U2FanPeter]

I wonder if u2 would ever do a "no multitracking" album.

Similar to what The Beatles attempted with Let It Be.

This would make sense with the idea that the last 2 albums were their White Album.

u2fp

[the tourist]

How about if they just piss everyone off and put out an album of the buzzing of bees and rivers running and Bono doing William-Shatner-esque spoken word haikus?

[Zoomerang96]

Originally posted by Layton
LOL------Just use Rock legends, then. We'll debate alternative, later.

and i will try and give you a good answer later too...gotta run now.

remind me i forget.

[U2girl]

The "U2 are doing radio music now" argument is not getting any stronger despite its repetition, it's certainly ludacris coming from someone who knows U2 and their music.
Don't worrry about it Layton.

[LMP]

Originally posted by the tourist
How about if they just piss everyone off and put out an album of the buzzing of bees and rivers running and Bono doing William-Shatner-esque spoken word haikus?

she packed my bags...last night, preflight *sucks cig*

zero hour...9 AM...

and I'm gonna be.......high.....as a kite, by then

[Bono's shades]

Originally posted by Layton


What's safe about risking one's reputation and legacy as alternative rock legends by using pop ideas to make themes for difficult and tragic times easier to digest?

The vast majority of the population doesn't give a crap about innovation in music. The vast majority of the population just loves radio-friendly, familar-sounding music. So even though U2 did piss off some people with ATYCLB and HTDAAB, the band wasn't really risking anything because the people who were likely to love it far outnumbered those who were likely to not be impressed.

[Layton]

Originally posted by Bono's shades

So even though U2 did piss off some people with ATYCLB and HTDAAB, the band wasn't really risking anything because the people who were likely to love it far outnumbered those who were likely to not be impressed.

Totally disagree with that because I said their reputation and legacy were put at risk. Those things can't be quantified by numbers. Losing 10 passionate fans is far worse than gaining 50 casual fans, I'd argue. That's the risk U2 took with HTDAAB (and the IPod commercial). Like always, U2 played a risk/reward game. They saw the reward as potentially being a windfall of new passionate fans, not just casual ones. The album delivers its thematic content in easy to digest forms (great melodies, sonic assuredness) in order to lure listeners into the brand of open heart surgery that is taking place on HTDAAB. If the listener follows this journey and discovers a personal soundtrack to these troubled times in the world, then a new passionate fan emerges. In conclusion, I think that it takes real guts to risk losing certain passionate fans ('90's lovers) for potentially more up-to-date passionate fans. Time will tell if the risk paid off or not.

[Zoots]

Originally posted by Layton



Totally disagree with that because I said their reputation and legacy were put at risk. Those things can't be quantified by numbers. Losing 10 passionate fans is far worse than gaining 50 casual fans, I'd argue. That's the risk U2 took with HTDAAB (and the IPod commercial). Like always, U2 played a risk/reward game. They saw the reward as potentially being a windfall of new passionate fans, not just casual ones. The album delivers its thematic content in easy to digest forms (great melodies, sonic assuredness) in order to lure listeners into the brand of open heart surgery that is taking place on HTDAAB. If the listener follows this journey and discovers a personal soundtrack to these troubled times in the world, then a new passionate fan emerges. In conclusion, I think that it takes real guts to risk losing certain passionate fans ('90's lovers) for potentially more up-to-date passionate fans. Time will tell if the risk paid off or not.

What nonsense! HTDAAB has a much more friendly sound than Zooropa, Passengers or Pop. So I'm sure it sells more. U2 had to know that it would sell more, they've been in the business for so long! What else is that but a safe way to make more money?

And their reputation and legacy are not exactly going to dissolve and vanish just because they released mainstream sounding albums. Fans are still gonna keep listening to their AB, JT, Zooropa, UF and whatever else records!

[Meghan]

^ Just like Rolling Stones are still loved, but not so much for their new stuff.


(But I still love new U2 )

[Layton]

Originally posted by Zootlesque


HTDAAB has a much more friendly sound than Zooropa, Passengers or Pop. So I'm sure it sells more. U2 had to know that it would sell more, they've been in the business for so long! What else is that but a safe way to make more money?

Why do you think they want to make more money?
Why do you think they want to sell more?
Why does HTDAAB have a friendly sound?
Do you think that U2 really has devolved into solely a money-making endeavor?
If so, does that risk harming a legacy and reputation built on artistry?
Can a reputation and/or legacy be risked this far into one's career?
If so, what kind of things can possibly hurt U2's reputation and legacy at this point?

Sorry to ask so many questions, but you seem to be speaking over my head most of the time. I think answers to some of those questions would give me a clearer understanding of your position. Thanks!!

[U2girl]

Like U2 didn't hurt their own legacy in the late 90s.

Why do you think so many fans came back with ATYCLB and Bomb?

[bathiu]

Originally posted by U2girl
Like U2 didn't hurt their own legacy in the late 90s.

Why do you think so many fans came back with ATYCLB and Bomb?

NO ONE CAME BACK.
U2 have around 3-4mln FANS (that will buy everything with a U2 sign on it)... the rest of the albums' sales is just "commercial succes", nothing more.

[Zoots]

In response to Layton...

Why do you think they want to make more money?
I don't know.. cos they made less money than they thought they would with Pop & Popmart??? And all said and done, at the end of the day it's a business. But how much artistic integrity are they willing to sacrifice just to make as much money as before and continue to be the biggest band in the world? If I were them I would be happy with my glorious past and stick to do what I do best... pushing the envelope, making new and interesting music and not giving a fuck whether it will sell or if I'll continue to be the biggest band in the world. Numbers don't equal quality!

Why do you think they want to sell more?
see above. Also... the 'reaching out to more people' argument doesn't exactly make sense cos they're losing old fans in the process!

Why does HTDAAB have a friendly sound?
Listen to Passengers, Pop, Radiohead's Kid A, Amnesiac, Pearl Jam's Vitalogy etc.. and then listen to ATYCLB and HTDAAB. Isn't it obvious which one is more radio friendly/easy to get into... and which ones make you go at first, but then as you listen more, you see the amount of work that has gone into it!

Do you think that U2 really has devolved into solely a money-making endeavor?
Maybe not 'solely' a money making endeavor.. but it feels like they're not trying as hard as before and are resting on their legacy! I could see it instantly in the sub-standard lyrics of ATYCLB.

If so, does that risk harming a legacy and reputation built on artistry?
There is no risk here because the more radio friendly an album is, the more it is guaranteed that you'll get listeners and subsequently buyers! The old fans are gonna be listening to the old records anyway. The legacy is still safe.

Can a reputation and/or legacy be risked this far into one's career?
I don't think so. Even old fans who're really pissed off with what the band is doing now (I'm NOT one of them btw ) are still going to keep listening to the albums they always loved! It would be hard to find old fans who're totally boycotting even their past work just cos they're pissed with the band presently... I think.

If so, what kind of things can possibly hurt U2's reputation and legacy at this point?
n/a

[roy]

Originally posted by Zootlesque
In response to Layton...

Why do you think they want to make more money?
I don't know.. cos they made less money than they thought they would with Pop & Popmart??? And all said and done, at the end of the day it's a business. Numbers don't equal quality!

Are you seriously suggesting that, despite being multi-millionaires (many times over), they have after all this time started making music purely for profit. Your opinion doesn't make sense, does it?

If this was their motivation why didn't they do it in 1984?