Clayton Hints of New Direction on Next Record

[U2Man]

That seriously made me laugh out loud! Seeing as how I only got married a few months ago, I think my wife would be pretty upset if I turned into a girl now...

You may have a point there

You just broke my heart, though.

 

[U2FanPeter]

<<REM, Pearl Jam and Radiohead>>

I think all 3 bands have had a very fractured relationship with the media at one time or another. REM didn't tour on their 2 biggest, back-to-back albums. U2 have always been very media savvy.

Also very interesting, AFAIK, PJ and RH have both graduated from their record contracts and are currently free agents. We'll find within a year if they have any ambitious plans.

u2fp

 

[roy]

Ironic though, the "alternative" U2 of the 90s had bigger hits than the "pop" U2 of this decade.

You mean alternative offerings such as WGRYWH, EBTTRT, Discotheque etc

 

[namkcuR]

The 90s wasn't the only time when U2 were 'Alternative'. They were alternative from 1983 all the way through the 90s. You hear Alternative, you think of 90s alternative rock, but in the 80s there was Alternative too, and it was populated by the likes of The Cure, Depeche Mode, The Police, et al. And U2.

NYD, TUF, Bad, Streets, WOWY, Bullet, etc, all alternative.

 

[Zoots]

The 90s wasn't the only time when U2 were 'Alternative'. They were alternative from 1983 all the way through the 90s. You hear Alternative, you think of 90s alternative rock, but in the 80s there was Alternative too, and it was populated by the likes of The Cure, Depeche Mode, The Police, et al. And U2.

NYD, TUF, Bad, Streets, WOWY, Bullet, etc, all alternative.

UToo and U2Man sittin' in the tree.......

 

[Murray]

Ironic though, the "alternative" U2 of the 90s had bigger hits than the "pop" U2 of this decade.

Wow....I never really thought of that...but you are right!

U2 have had bigger hits when trying to create something new and experimental, rather than trying to recreate past hits,
which is probably why WTSHNN was a hit but COBL was not.

I guess I am not the only one that wants to hear U2 be experimental again - the entire country does!

 

[Meghan]

World.

 

[U2girl]

The 90s wasn't the only time when U2 were 'Alternative'. They were alternative from 1983 all the way through the 90s. You hear Alternative, you think of 90s alternative rock, but in the 80s there was Alternative too, and it was populated by the likes of The Cure, Depeche Mode, The Police, et al. And U2.

NYD, TUF, Bad, Streets, WOWY, Bullet, etc, all alternative.

U2 stopped being alternative when they moved on from playing clubs, to playing arenas, to playing stadiums, increasing album sales and getting more and more radio and MTV airplay.

 

[U2girl]

You mean alternative offerings such as WGRYWH, EBTTRT, Discotheque etc

Or One and Mysterious ways, Stay and Staring at the sun, If god will send his angels and Last night on earth.

 

[Tyagu_Anaykus]

what the?
Isn't this forum about this:
"Clayton Hints of New Direction on Next Record"

thats why i like this forum. Every time we start a thread about something, that something becomes something else.

 

[namkcuR]

U2 stopped being alternative when they moved on from playing clubs, to playing arenas, to playing stadiums, increasing album sales and getting more and more radio and MTV airplay.

No. Your are incorrect. Do you even know what alternative means? It is NOT synonomous with 'Indie'. 'Indie' is what you just described. 'Alternative' is a sub-mainstream style.

 

[U2girl]

They've been part of the mainstream since 1987.

 

[namkcuR]

They've been part of the mainstream since 1987.

You still don't get it.

Sub-mainstream would be a layer OF the mainstream. An Alternative band can still be in the mainstream. It's not one or the other. Non-alternative rock would be Aerosmith, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Metallica, Kiss, Guns'N'Roses, et al. Alternative rock would be The Cure, U2, Depeche Mode, Radiohead, Joy Division, Red Hot Chili Peppers, R.E.M., Pink Floyd, Oasis, Coldplay, The Verve, et al. Different styles, but both can be and are mainstream.

 

[U2girl]

The Cure, U2, Depeche Mode, Radiohead, Joy Division, Red Hot Chili Peppers, R.E.M., Pink Floyd, Oasis, Coldplay, The Verve, et al

We will have to agree to disagree. I can't see how you can say U2 (two or three other bands on that list I also wouldn't label as as alternative) has anything in common music- and the beloved word here - attiitude-wise to the above bands.

 

[namkcuR]

The Cure, U2, Depeche Mode, Radiohead, Joy Division, Red Hot Chili Peppers, R.E.M., Pink Floyd, Oasis, Coldplay, The Verve, et al

We will have to agree to disagree. I can't see how you can say U2 (two or three other bands on that list I also wouldn't label as as alternative) has anything in common music- and the beloved word here - attiitude-wise to the above bands.

We will have to disagree then.

 

[bsp77]

We will have to agree to disagree.

Technically speaking, namkcuR is correct. Alternative is just a style of music that U2 is a part of. Alternative is pretty much the new mainstream when it comes to rock.

 

[Layton]

what the?
Isn't this forum about this:
"Clayton Hints of New Direction on Next Record"

thats why i like this forum. Every time we start a thread about something, that something becomes something else.

I'll take the blame for this firestorm. I started it with the 2 zoo's (rang and esque). Now, I gotta go back and figure out what they had to say.

 

[Layton]

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.


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!

There are 2 schools of thought regarding making great Rock music or great art, for that matter, the way I see it. One is what you describe as not giving a fuck about sales or not. The other is creating work that is easily digestable for the purpose of finding a way into an observers soul, for lack of better words. Why is one better than the other?

What you call radio-friendly is really the use of pop ideas to facillitate the easy-to-digest aspect of HTDAAB's art. These ideas are a creative means to an end. Why use this brand of creativity, you ask? Well, it's because HTDAAB is an amazingly ambitious album. It adheres to the old school philosophy of music as inspiration. The fuck it all philosophy you like so much doesn't have room for that idea.

U2 are as grand as they come. HTDAAB is an attempt to create art for the mightiest inspirational purposes. The key to whether or not it works is whether the thematic content really delivers (Remember, it's POSSIBLE that pop ideas can be subversive). In other words, does the album lure people in and succeed in becoming a guide for the initiated to lean on as they journey through today's world? That's how HTDAAB should be evaluated.

Money hungry, too safe, radio friendly, those are just cliches that noisemakers rely on. Here at Interference, we bring the noise not just make noise----LOL. That's why I asked all the questions. Thanks for answering them.

 

[Zoots]

Well, it's because HTDAAB is an amazingly ambitious album. It adheres to the old school philosophy of music as inspiration. The fuck it all philosophy you like so much doesn't have room for that idea.

Who said I am not for the 'music as inspiration' philosophy??? If I only liked the 'fuck it all' philosophy as you so put it, I would only like the 90s output... Achtung thru Pop... nothing before and nothing after. But I love all the inspirational stuff they did from Boy to Rattle as well as all the crazy shit they did from Achtung thru Pop! It's the post Pop stuff that feels a tad derivative and just plain.. not as good! It's no doubt ambitious, I'm not denying that! There are few songs in U2's career that sound as ambitious as Miracle Drug. Doesn't mean that some of these songs couldn't have turned out better, had they not sat on them for 4 years, changed the lyrics and produced the shit out of them! ATYCLB would have turned out so much better and more inspirational with songs like Ground Beneath, Levitate, Stateless and Summer Rain instead of the mediocre IALW & Wild Honey, the amateur rhymes of Grace (I do like the melody) or the over-produced Stuck! And compare the lyrics of ABOY (album ver) w/ ABOY (alt.). The latter is sooooo much better IMO. It's not like they don't still have it in them. It just seems like they're paranoid or something about how these songs would be received and they end up eventually making a mess out of them. More often than not, I think, ideas are best when they're born... like a creative burst or explosion which... after much analysis and 'too many cooks' treatment, loses it's flavor.

 

[the tourist]

I don't think U2 is alternative at all. U2 is Pop. Just like the title of the album. Then again, I don't think alternative is necessarily a style of music. Other words someone could have come up with of "different than the main style of music you hear on the radio" are: Unconventional; Substitute; Avant Garde; Eccentric. Alternative isn't a description of the sound. It's a description of a fact. Although I couldn't call U2 alternative with songs such as With Or Without You, Mysterious Ways, New Year's Day, Pride, I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For, Where The Streets Have No Name, Beautiful Day, and other pop songs that show up on the radio quite frequently. "Alternative", as stupidly factual a description it is (which from now on I'll call "Unconventional"), would probably be things like new Pearl Jam that don't get much radio play. New Oasis (old Oasis is pop, unless you consider "britPOP" to be alternative, or better, unconventional) is "alternative". I think subcategories are stupid anyway. But subcategories that try to become their own category entirely, where two bands can sound 100% differently and be classified under the same category (ie, I've heard Jars Of Clay, Bjork, Radiohead, and Velvet Revolver all classified as "alternative"), is just completely silly. U2 is pop.

 

[namkcuR]

I don't think U2 is alternative at all. U2 is Pop. Just like the title of the album. Then again, I don't think alternative is necessarily a style of music. Other words someone could have come up with of "different than the main style of music you hear on the radio" are: Unconventional; Substitute; Avant Garde; Eccentric. Alternative isn't a description of the sound. It's a description of a fact. Although I couldn't call U2 alternative with songs such as With Or Without You, Mysterious Ways, New Year's Day, Pride, I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For, Where The Streets Have No Name, Beautiful Day, and other pop songs that show up on the radio quite frequently. "Alternative", as stupidly factual a description it is (which from now on I'll call "Unconventional"), would probably be things like new Pearl Jam that don't get much radio play. New Oasis (old Oasis is pop, unless you consider "britPOP" to be alternative, or better, unconventional) is "alternative". I think subcategories are stupid anyway. But subcategories that try to become their own category entirely, where two bands can sound 100% differently and be classified under the same category (ie, I've heard Jars Of Clay, Bjork, Radiohead, and Velvet Revolver all classified as "alternative"), is just completely silly. U2 is pop.

Then we disagree as well.

New Year's Day, Two Hearts Beat As One, The Unforgettable Fire(the song), Promenade, Bad, Elvis Presley And America, Still Haven't Found, With Or Without You, Bullet The Blue Sky, Running To Stand Still, One Tree Hill, Exit, Zoo Station, Until The End Of The World, The Fly, Mysterious Ways, Ultraviolet, Acrobat, the whole Zooropa record, the whole Pop record, all Alternative. U2 were alternative from 1983-1999 in my book.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Alternative isn't a style or genre of music. It's an MTVism.

 

[namkcuR]

Alternative isn't a style or genre of music. It's an MTVism.

Then call it Progressive. Call it whatever you want, but it IS a style and genre that many artists have inhabited.

 

[thrillme]

Then we disagree as well.

New Year's Day, Two Hearts Beat As One, The Unforgettable Fire(the song), Promenade, Bad, Elvis Presley And America, Still Haven't Found, With Or Without You, Bullet The Blue Sky, Running To Stand Still, One Tree Hill, Exit, Zoo Station, Until The End Of The World, The Fly, Mysterious Ways, Ultraviolet, Acrobat, the whole Zooropa record, the whole Pop record, all Alternative. U2 were alternative from 1983-1999 in my book.

U2 is still quite different from what is considered "mainstream."

"A Man and a Woman," not something you hear very often. "I could never take a chance, on losing love to find romance."

Not many rock bands outside "Christian rock" are going to put out a song titled "Yahweh."

"City of blinding lights" it's all about the bass on that one! Granted there's not nearly as many Adam fans as say, Bono and Edge fans, but for him, I think Atomic Bomb was a great album.

U2 doesn't sound like a whole lot of other musical acts out there, lyrically especially, except by those who openly, or it's clear enough U2 was an influence.

U2 doesn't fit many labels. Punk influenced, but tell a hard core punk fan that U2 is punk rock.

Classic rock, when you're first album debuts when you're 19-20, yet you still put out albums in your 40's, yeah you end up on "classic rock" playlists.

Alternative, just because they don't really fit.

"Tomorrow" is the most traditionally "Irish" sounding song of theirs.

(Back on topic)

"Clayton will confess a personal desire to 'expand the sound of U2 a little bit.

This is the one who said "Pop" was based on his musical style.

Perhaps the part about not being so abstract is referring to the lyrics? Bono will be even more open and direct, rather than making you wonder what he's on about.

 

[Tyagu_Anaykus]

great discussion here. But the main question still remains to be answered: What's alternative, after all?

Is it a music concept? Is it something thats just sound diferent? or alternative is =concept+sound diferent?

Because, if it's something that's just or sound diferent, then U2 were alternative for most of their career...

 

[Tyagu_Anaykus]

I'll take the blame for this firestorm. I started it with the 2 zoo's (rang and esque). Now, I gotta go back and figure out what they had to say.

don't worry about it. I'm lovin' this discussion

 

[bsp77]

Alternative is a genre of music. That is a fact, there really should not be any argument about that. However, whether or not there SHOULD be a genre of music called Alternative, that is different and have heard arguments both ways.

 

[phanan]

You still don't get it.

Sub-mainstream would be a layer OF the mainstream. An Alternative band can still be in the mainstream. It's not one or the other. Non-alternative rock would be Aerosmith, Rolling Stones, Led Zeppelin, Metallica, Kiss, Guns'N'Roses, et al. Alternative rock would be The Cure, U2, Depeche Mode, Radiohead, Joy Division, Red Hot Chili Peppers, R.E.M., Pink Floyd, Oasis, Coldplay, The Verve, et al. Different styles, but both can be and are mainstream.

I agree with this, except that Pink Floyd isn't alternative. A more proper label (if one can be applied) would be progressive.

 

[Layton]

Who said I am not for the 'music as inspiration' philosophy??? If I only liked the 'fuck it all' philosophy as you so put it, I would only like the 90s output... Achtung thru Pop... nothing before and nothing after. But I love all the inspirational stuff they did from Boy to Rattle as well as all the crazy shit they did from Achtung thru Pop! It's the post Pop stuff that feels a tad derivative and just plain.. not as good!

I never said you weren't for the 'music as inspiration' philosophy. My point was that you didn't bring it up until I did. That makes me think you're not taking it into account when evaluating HTDAAB. Anybody who evaluates HTDAAB without taking this aspect into account is off base, IMO. That's not to say the album is perfect, but before one criticizes I think it's important to comprehend what the album is TRYING to do. I think the thematic evidence points to the album TRYING to reach the hearts of the average music consumer and have it's way with those hearts. This is a far cry from the album TRYING to be a money-making sales endeavor to keep their status as world's biggest band.

On a side note, I'd argue that the '80's stuff you bring up isn't akin to the '00's stuff. Back then, their work was more characterized by passionate stances and dramatically powerfull displays of emotion. This could have inspirational side effects, but it's aim wasn't the proverbial arrow through the heart, like the current stuff. This is why I think current U2 is so much about doing as opposed to expressing (parrallelling Bono's Africa work). For the first time, they're DOING something they've always believed in. That would be using music as a force for positive change through the prism of the individual. I believe all of this is as artistically demanding as anything they've ever done. Whether or not all of this succeeds is a whole different matter, but clearly they're not just going through the motions.

 

[Zoots]

On a side note, I'd argue that the '80's stuff you bring up isn't akin to the '00's stuff. Back then, their work was more characterized by passionate stances and dramatically powerfull displays of emotion. This could have inspirational side effects, but it's aim wasn't the proverbial arrow through the heart, like the current stuff. This is why I think current U2 is so much about doing as opposed to expressing (parrallelling Bono's Africa work). For the first time, they're DOING something they've always believed in. That would be using music as a force for positive change through the prism of the individual. I believe all of this is as artistically demanding as anything they've ever done.

Layton, I'm not against their current policy of 'doing something' and 'reaching every individual' with soulful/heartfelt songs! Good for them if they're using music as a force for positive change through the prism of the individual!!! My point (that you seemed to have missed) is that the song quality post 2000 just isn't on par with that of pre-2000! Either the songs have mediocre lyrics or they're overproduced or they're too blatant, not subtle enough.. See, I'm not talking about the philosophy or idea they're going for. I'm talking about the nuts and bolts of it, the bottomline... do they deliver with the songs? My answer is.. they do but they can do better! And I'm not even running down their abilties entirely! Cos there are some amazing songs that have come out of these sessions like Mercy, Ground Beneath, Stateless, Levitate and Summer Rain! For some reason, these were left out in favor of other mediocre ones (eg. IALW lyrics, Wild Honey, Grace lyrics, Kite ending). It's just my opinion and I guess we agree to disagree.