Clayton Hints of New Direction on Next Record

[namkcuR]

Originally posted by 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.

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]

Originally posted by Earnie Shavers
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]

Originally posted by namkcuR


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]

Originally posted by Layton


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]

Originally posted by namkcuR


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]

Originally posted by Zootlesque


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]

Originally posted by Layton

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.

[ZeroDude]

At least they're still making good music

The best stuff only we'll get our hands on, the general populace are the ones being fooled, screwed over et al

[the tourist]

Originally posted by namkcuR


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.

To me, those are all pop, rock, and electronica (since I'm of the firm belief that alternative is not a genre of music, but simply what people call things that branch into more than one musical category).

[Earnie Shavers]

Originally posted by the tourist

To me, those are all pop, rock, and electronica (since I'm of the firm belief that alternative is not a genre of music, but simply what people call things that branch into more than one musical category).

Yes, it's not a genre or style. It's just an umbrella term for music (across all genres and styles) that doesn't quite fit in the 'mainstream'.

[the tourist]

Originally posted by Earnie Shavers


Yes, it's not a genre or style. It's just an umbrella term for music (across all genres and styles) that doesn't quite fit in the 'mainstream'.

I guess I just don't see how With Or Without You doesn't fit into the mainstream. *shrugs*

[U2DMfan]

Originally posted by the tourist


I guess I just don't see how With Or Without You doesn't fit into the mainstream. *shrugs*

I wouldnt argue a huge case for that song being "alternative" but in 1987, as far as songs on the radio it was unlike most everything at the time. That infinite guitar sound had never been on a song that cracked the top 40, much less anywhere else. Also Edge's trademark guitar, very late in the song and it's essentially bass driven for the most part. So in that sense it was alternative to the mainstream at the time, while being a huge hit. I wouldn't take a big issue either way. It's a love song with basic pop elements, but at the time it was a bit more progressive than it seems 18 years later.

[the tourist]

Does that make Sgt. Pepper's "alternative"? Since their songs sounded like nothing else that was on the top 40? I guess that means The Beatles weren't a rock band. Or a pop band.

[bsp77]

Originally posted by the tourist
Does that make Sgt. Pepper's "alternative"? Since their songs sounded like nothing else that was on the top 40? I guess that means The Beatles weren't a rock band. Or a pop band.

Alright, this is getting stupid. Alternative has only existed since the early 80's and it is a genre of music. It is kind of a "catch-all" and maybe not an appropriate term. But the name still exists whether we like it or not, and it does refer to a very broad genre of music. And yes, With or Without You is alternative. It may have been unbelievably successful but still fits within the genre of Alternative.

[Earnie Shavers]

But you know that 99% of people will laugh at you if you described U2 as an 'alternative' band. That's what I mean about it being an MTVism or an image thing more than a clearly defined genre or style. The With or Without You example above is correct. Technically it's very alternative/progressive, yet most would consider it one of the biggest mainstream pop hits of the last two decades (if not in sales, in instant recognisability). So, I think my point is, you can create 'alternative' definitions and examples, but they are pretty individual from person to person, so it's not really worth arguing one way or another on it for too long.

[Layton]

Originally posted by Zootlesque


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!

I purposely avoided the song quality part of the equation because I respect your tastes. As usual, I'm on about some of the conclusions that are drawn by the ones who are disappointed by the quality. I think sales-minded, going through the motions, radio-friendly and nostalgic, to name a few are bad conclusions regarding U2's motivation behind these 'subpar' songs. I think there is sufficient thematic evidence to disprove those conclusions. Of course, that doesn't mean the current stuff is above criticism. I think HTDAAB has its moments where the artistic execution isn't great, but I think they're more attributable to just missing their mark than to some money-hungry, resting on your laurels conclusion.

[Tyagu_Anaykus]

boy this is getting interesting