"Fuck Up The Mainstream"

[U2girl]

The fact he's basically acting is just bonus annoying. Of course the biggest irony is it came out of U2 being blasted for being the opposite of that image. The rebels !

If anything the "pop kids" would be eating up the new stuff, and long time fans would be longing for the songs of early albums and funny enough, U2 did include SBS and NYD later on the stadiums.

 

[Tiger Edge]

I just don't feel like U2 takes risks anymore the way they did when they reinvented themselves in the early 90s. I'm not saying they're not capable of such changes again, because creatively I certainly think they are, but I've felt like something has been holding them back these last few years, and I'm beginning to think it's U2 the business, to some degree at least, as well as the role Bono has come to play in activism and politics. Let's be realistic: if Bono called the president during a concert now, the president would probably accept his call. U2 has more power and influence than ever to fuck up the mainstream, both in terms of the music itself and of the music industry, but they've become the mainstream. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but with it has come certain limitations.

I'd love it if their new album proves me wrong, if they make bold creative choices even if it means not raking in millions. If U2 records it, people will buy it, and people will always go see them play. That's all the more reason to experiment, I think, but I'm skeptical that they will. I enjoyed HTDAAB and the last tour, and I still count U2 as one of my favorite bands, but I feel like there's so much more they're capable of. I put the in my previous post because I miss that U2, the one that found ways to surprise me. I think they could blaze a lot of new paths--how music is sold, how bands can pull off major tours that are still environmentally-friendly, how bands use the internet, not to mention how to strengthen the bond Bono has already helped to create between popular culture and youth activism. Will they blaze those paths, though?

Agreed. They can't continue to play it safe if they want to remain relevant with the youth. We'll see what they do with their next project, but the #1 obstacle is the manager. I'm not saying that should sack the guy (and they wouldn't, even if he drowned puppies) but they need to take other options into consideration to keep themselves fresh. As corporate as the U2 iPod was, it was a good move in terms of de-aging themselves. We'll see how they do when they turn 50.

 

[Aardvark747]

Great 1st post doctorwho.

 

[U2girl]

I'm only basing my expectations on what I've seen U2 do in the past. I also really think change is going to have to come from an artist or artists. Media conglomerates like LiveNation, Ticketmaster, and the like are businesses, and as businesses, profits are their number one concern.

But so far LiveNation has been at the forefront of trying new things in the industry. Out of the things you mention, U2 can only be credited for reinventing rock tours.

Mostly I'd like to see them relax about the US market and ease up on the US charts race. They have proven they can write a great pop song, do big singles, give the young guns some competition and that they can attract new and younger audiences.
I think combination of All that... and Bomb succeeding will give them license to go out and try something else again. They can not go on competing in the pop environment forever (they gained enough new fans in the last decade).

 

[falkon]

This bullshit has to stop once and for all. The only track on Pop that sounds like the Prodigy or Chem Bros. is Mofo. And maybe Discotheque to an extent. Everything else was unique, interesting and different. Would more people buy an album with songs like Velvet Dress or an album with songs like Kite??? Gimme a break!

But it's all true. Pop was the bandwagon jump of all bandwagon jumps.

 

[rihannsu]

But it's all true. Pop was the bandwagon jump of all bandwagon jumps.

Except that the US never jumped on the bandwagon and didn't want to take the ride which meant they started off behind the eight ball and no matter that the album actually sold reasonably well and the tour kinks got worked out the press would never acknowledge that and therefore Pop was forever labeled a flop. The press was a hell of a lot worse than the actual numbers. A lot of artist would kill for a flop like Pop.

Dana

 

[U2girl]

I think that the bad start of the tour hurt them more than US not responding to the album.

 

[An Cat Gav]

This bullshit has to stop once and for all. The only track on Pop that sounds like the Prodigy or Chem Bros. is Mofo. And maybe Discotheque to an extent. Everything else was unique, interesting and different. Would more people buy an album with songs like Velvet Dress or an album with songs like Kite??? Gimme a break!

Agreed 100%, even Mofo sounds nothing like The Prodigy or Chem Bros etc.

 

[Peterrrrr]

Well this MTV award speech is even better:
w w w.sen dspace.com/file/sv4n93

 

[Saracene]

I think it is very shortsighted to pretend every decision from 89-99 was a deeply artistic one and every decision made since a corporate one
it's always been a mix and the mix has hardly changed

And I think that the band's reaction to the relative failure of POP proved that, contrary to the "90s U2 didn't care about appealing to the masses" mantra, the band did care about it very much and the response (or lack of it) to POP stung quite a bit.

I think it's also easy to forget that POP was U2's first real commercial hiccup since they became truly huge with Joshua Tree, so in a way they've never really been "tested", so to speak. As for how calculated their reaction was... well, U2 never really gave me an impression that they were a band who just tinkered in their own corner doing their own thing, oblivious to how the world perceives them.

 

[AtomicBono]

Not that pop kids quote again - yes, great response to a valid question on setlists, Fly.

well, to be fair, I think he did legitimately answer the question. "We didn't want to" is a valid answer

also though the pop kids thing may be a part of the whole Fly badass act, I think maybe what he meant was casual U2 fans who only liked them because of their hits on the radio vs. diehards.

as for the original video: drunken Bono

 

[popbellydancer]

I just don't feel like U2 takes risks anymore the way they did when they reinvented themselves in the early 90s. I'm not saying they're not capable of such changes again, because creatively I certainly think they are, but I've felt like something has been holding them back these last few years, and I'm beginning to think it's U2 the business, to some degree at least, as well as the role Bono has come to play in activism and politics. Let's be realistic: if Bono called the president during a concert now, the president would probably accept his call. U2 has more power and influence than ever to fuck up the mainstream, both in terms of the music itself and of the music industry, but they've become the mainstream. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but with it has come certain limitations.

I'd love it if their new album proves me wrong, if they make bold creative choices even if it means not raking in millions. If U2 records it, people will buy it, and people will always go see them play. That's all the more reason to experiment, I think, but I'm skeptical that they will. I enjoyed HTDAAB and the last tour, and I still count U2 as one of my favorite bands, but I feel like there's so much more they're capable of. I put the in my previous post because I miss that U2, the one that found ways to surprise me. I think they could blaze a lot of new paths--how music is sold, how bands can pull off major tours that are still environmentally-friendly, how bands use the internet, not to mention how to strengthen the bond Bono has already helped to create between popular culture and youth activism. Will they blaze those paths, though?

i too, agree with every syllable of this post. i LOVED elevation, and (at times) enjoyed the last tour. however, my biggest fear is that we are gonna see elevation 3. let's face it, if the staging, the setlist, the clothing, and the general feel of the band all remain the same...it will be another elevation knock-off just like the vertigo tour was. NOT that it wouldn't be fun and enjoyable, it would. it's just that, i believe that for the time being it's time to hang up the stripped down, all politics all the time appraoch of the last 2 tours and amp it up a bit. make no mistake i love and respect this band for their politics...but i MISS their showmanship. and several years ago doing one didn't mean excluding the other.

in the words of bono....
"Rock and roll...what the FUCK is rock and roll??....they say it used to be dance music....SHOW ME!!" ~Bono Zoo Houston~

 

[shart1780]

See, I really have problems with these sweeping, and forgive me, rather banal comments.

Mainstream? Corporate? U2 are just as corporate now as they were back in the early 80's, when the had T-shirts and video of their concerts and singles and remixes (yes, remixes). I mean, they released "Wide Awake...", a 4-track EP between albums. We praise "Wide Awake..." now, but if U2 released a little 4-track EP right this very moment, we'd all claim how "corporate" they were and how money-hungry they are. We zoom on in the iPod commercial, completely and conveniently forgetting that Larry did a Harley commercial back in the 80's! We poke fun at their U.S. TV appearances now, forgetting how often they appeared on Irish and UK TV back in the 80's. I see zero difference between now and then. U2 were always about being the biggest band and that hasn't changed. And part of being big is working within the corporate system. KISS, yes, KISS, knew this back in the 70's. They had action figures of themselves, along with lunch-boxes and crappy TV shows. Yet, now, they are still respected as "rock gods". Working within the system gains necessary exposure to ultimately get your message out. U2 learned this early on - and Bono is now fully exploiting this fact for DATA.

As for quality of music, just as I wrote above, when ATYCLB and HTDAAB were released, they sounded like nothing on the radio at the time. So what exactly makes them "safe" releases? The one time U2 were "safe", oddly and perhaps ironically enough, was with "Pop". U2 tried to emulate sounds they heard by other artists (like Prodigy and the Chemical Bros.). Then they mixed that in with Beatle-esque tracks. We all know the result. In other words, when U2 tries to blend in, they don't succeed nearly as well as when they go their own paths.

So please don't dismiss them as being "corporate" and afraid of change, because the only evidence I've seen of this came in 1997, from an album that people here claim is so "different".

Did you just say that when ATYCLBH and Bomb sounded like nothing at the time? I'm guessing you've never heard an adult alternative song until 2000.

 

[popbellydancer]

Did you just say that when ATYCLBH and Bomb sounded like nothing at the time? I'm guessing you've never heard an adult alternative song until 2000.

 

[BVS]

I'm guessing you've never heard an adult alternative song until 2000.

What is 'adult alternative'? Examples?

 

[shaun vox]

matchbox 20 is adult alternative.
hope that helps

 

[BVS]

 

[rihannsu]

matchbox 20 is adult alternative.
hope that helps

So are you saying you would class ATYCLB as adult alternative?

Dana

 

[falkon]

"With Or Without You", "One", "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For", "Where The Streets Have No Name", & "Pride" are staples on Adult Alternative radio.

 

[U2girl]

As for quality of music, just as I wrote above, when ATYCLB and HTDAAB were released, they sounded like nothing on the radio at the time. So what exactly makes them "safe" releases?

They sold well.