Remember the Joshua Tree days when U2 guys looked so serious?

[dougal55]

Hey!

I was listening to some Joshua Tree songs the other day and I just remembered the days when I first started seeing U2 live back in 1987.

I recall, with some mirth, how the music press were so savage and cynical about how those guys "looked so serious" everywhere they go that year and the year after that!

Actually I thought the shows I saw (in Wembley and Edinburgh) were fantastic, its just that almost every time I pick up a music magazine like NME, Sounds and so on, the journos complains about U2. Grrrr! I thought "Oh come on! Give these guys a break" but by the time Rattle and Hum got released in 1988, the press got real worse. It was terrible! I ignored them as much as I could cos I absolutely love U2 no matter what!

But it was late 1989 when I read reports of U2 touring in Australia when they played something like 10 nights in a row in Sydney. I thought that was wrong and what made matters worse was the fact they were repeating themselves over and over which eroded the live experience. It was awful reading about it...

But happily, that all changed when I first saw the video for The Fly. My reaction was something like "Holy F**k! Is that Bono in his all-black clothes with ridiculous looking shades?!?!" I imagine anyone here in the forum who saw it back then must have had the same reaction! It was quite a sight to watch! From then on, everything they did went fine even with Pop which wasnt well received in the States.

Nowadays on the back of All That You Cant Leave Behind's success, the music press have nothing but praise for U2's music and Bono's campaigning for Africa.

It made me realise how close U2 were to splitting up back in 1989 following some fractious times between the guys and some pretty bad press, only for them to come back with a bang in 1991 with Achtung Baby! Amazing!

dougal

 

[Red Ships of Scalla-Festa]

dougal, im not sure how to say this, but i think we should start seeing each other a lot more often.

 

[U2Kitten]

FIrst, I don't know if this is some kind of joke, or if you want a serious discussion. Assuming the latter is correct, I must take your counterpoint. I had a rant here a couple of months ago when somebody said pre-AB U2 was all pofaced and serious. I beg to differ.

I became a fan in 1983, at age 13, and followed them heavily throught the years. In the days of JT and Rattle and Hum, I was in my last days of high school, and an avid fan. I was glued to MTV, it was good in those days and gave U2 a lot of exposure. I collected everything I could find on them in articles and magazines. I had many friends, family members and acquaintences who were U2 fans or at least aware of them. In all that, I never experienced this bad press thing of which you speak. Honestly, I never even heard it until I joined this message board! Whatever there may have been negative about them, it was far overshadowed by the glory of the times and the greatness. U2 was on top of the world, in everyone's face and heard and seen as if they were common knowedge and household words. All I can remember is good stuff, and I was so proud, having already been a fan.

Po-faced?! No. There are smiling and laughing pics and video clips of those days, I have them. The reason the pics looked like that was because the music was serious and important, and making laughing jackasses of themselves would have taken away credibility from it. So the pics were posed that way. It didn't mean the guys were dull, boring and depressed all the time. No way. They were having fun. They always had. Look at the laughing and joking in The Unforgettable Fire collection tape!

*sends this post before the site logs me out and I lose it. Be back later with the continuation

 

[U2Kitten]

Originally posted by dougal55But happily, that all changed when I first saw the video for The Fly. My reaction was something like "Holy F**k! Is that Bono in his all-black clothes with ridiculous looking shades?!?!" I imagine anyone here in the forum who saw it back then must have had the same reaction! It was quite a sight to watch! From then on, everything they did went fine even with Pop which wasnt well received in the States.

Nowadays on the back of All That You Cant Leave Behind's success, the music press have nothing but praise for U2's music and Bono's campaigning for Africa.

It made me realise how close U2 were to splitting up back in 1989 following some fractious times between the guys and some pretty bad press, only for them to come back with a bang in 1991 with Achtung Baby! Amazing!

Really?! That's not how I saw it at all, and that's not what happened. It was very different. Are you saying because of the 'funny' 90's personas they are more respected now? Uh, sorry, but I beg to differ on this too. Here's why- A lot of fans and press who had respected U2 in the 80's lost it in the 90's. A lot of people were put off by the way they acted and presented themselves. With some, it happened with AB and the devil suit. I never had a problem with AB and neither did anyone I knew, but I did notice a bit of bad press. That bad press, and fans speaking ill of them, kicked in with the Lemon video and Zooropa. But it was POP that really hurt them. Now I know a lot of people get upset by this so please don't be angry, but what you said about 'everything they did went fine' after 1991 was simply not true. POP was ridiculed by the press and fans alike. I knew, and still know previously diehard fans who mocked them and denied them. The dressing like village idiots and coming out of a lemon in circus like costumes did not gain them nearly as much respect as it lost them. As a friend from another board recently posted, "I could not bear to watch the mockery that had become of the band I once loved." They had made fools of themselves. Some of you say they were having fun, well, they always had fun. But that was too much. Maybe it's because U2 was too great and too important and wasn't meant to be made fun of. Like somebody trying to copy another person's personality to be more popular, it didn't suit them. Now I realize a lot of you love Zooropa and Pop and I'm not knocking that. I'm simply stating a fact that things were not 'all right' and if there was any 'bad press' it was from those days, not JT and Rattle and Hum!

You speak of ATYCLB and Bono's work in Africa being respected now. That is a result of the way were able to salvage their reputations and present themselves to the public, winning back the respect of media and fans alike, whether or not it was right they ever had to. It was the respect they had won in the late 80's that they won back. ATYCLB was the 'comeback' not AB! Those are the facts, man.

Now with Bono's campaigns in Africa and all his accolades, along with their impressive catalog of songs and videos, U2 is assured their legacy and and respect for all time.

But I must ask you, would the 'silly' U2 in their 'funny' costumes ever had been asked to do the Super Bowl, NBA halftime, etc.?

Which is not to say that they are 'serious' now. Well, they are serious, serious about their work, sentimental, reflective and grateful. Their life experience can be heard in their recent work. But anyone who's ever seen, heard, or read a Bono interview knows he is a cool and witty guy. But he always was, all his life, regardless of what he sang or wore. But now that is has become a figure of world importance, he can't let go of his credibility. His message is too important for that. He's handling it just fine, just the way he is

Oh, did you know he said the "F" word again at the Novello awards?

.....what a "fucking" beautiful day!

... Bono, May 22, 2003

 

[Blue Room]

Two words: Dalton Brothers! Is that a band that is serious all the time?? NO It was an image the Press created at the time. It started with the JT album cover and rolled from there.

 

[U2Kitten]

I'm going to go dig through my pics and see what comical pics I can find. Until then, here they are pretending to hitchhike in the Arizona desert

There's a really cute one of them, JT era, spraying each other with some drink from a bottle and laughing their asses off.

 

[david]

If you have the Rattle and Hum outtake videos you can see Bono chasing a squirrel.

 

[Chizip]

obviously they weren't serious 100% of the time

but there was a perception of them being much more serious then, than post rattle and hum days

thats why they changed, so they wouldnt be seen as so serious anymore

 

[Saracene]

I wasn't really paying attention back then, but the majority of interviews and articles from those times do tend to paint the band as a rather over-serious, stony-faced bunch. However it is notable that very few interviewers would actually ask the band any fun, light-hearted questions in the first place, so it's also a case of other people treating the band with perhaps too much seriousness.

 

[Bono's shades]

I think there might be a difference in how U2 was/is perceived in the U.S. and in other parts of the world. Speaking from an American perspective, everyone - fans and media alike - seemed to think U2 could do no wrong back in 1987. It wasn't until Rattle and Hum in 1988 that they began to get some media backlash. And I don't remember a whole lot of criticism in the American media over Achtung Baby or Zoo TV. (Then again, maybe I wasn't paying that much attention since I wasn't on the Internet then and didn't have access to tons of articles about the band like I do now). They did get trashed pretty badly in the States over Pop, but I've heard the album and tour were received much better overseas. And now everyone seems to love the band again.

As for U2 being perceived as super-serious in the Joshua Tree era, I think that was just an image the media latched onto. In a way I can understand why - after all, they DID seem awfully serious compared to other rock bands at the time - but I think it was a pretty narrow definition. All you had to do is watch the video for ISHFWILF to see the band's silly side!

 

[david]

I think the photo of the band in the middle of the album gatefold of the Joshua Tree album set the wheels rolling for the whole "serious" label.

A lot of bands in 87 were too busy teasing their hair up and putting on gobs of makeup to take pictures for their album sleeves, then you have U2 standing in the middle of a desert, frowning... So yeah.

But then again, I think a band's look really says a lot about their sound. Especially back in 87, there was bubble gum metal music made by the likes of Poison, and as I said earlier, they were one of the teased hair, makeup wearing pretty boy bands.. Then the pic of U2 standing in the desert frowning, it says a lot about most of the songs on The Joshua Tree.

 

[follower]

You know, after 4 years online, I got to know a lot about the way the band was perceived abroad, especially in US, of course. I?m starting to believe that the american media (and only that one) was as narrow-minded with R & H (album and film) as they were with Pop and Popmart. What a blasphemy, LOL. Maybe U2 being appreciative of their idols with R & H, or daring and experimental with Pop is too much for them.

 

[Blue Room]

I remember an interview with Bono where he explained why they had such serious looks on their face for the Joshua Tree photo shoot. He said they were freezing their asses off. It was about 20 to 30 degrees out there and in alot of those pics they are just wearing a shirt.

Like I said before it was a perception that the media built based on the album photography. I agree with what some of you have said about their music and image compared to others at the time also. This probebly also contributed to the image. They were going up against groups like Poison and Bon Jovi (the hair bands). So in contrast, the way they looked and the music they played was super serious. I mean compare: Talk Dirty To Me vs With Or Without You?? Which do you think is more serious sounding just by the name. Compare album titles: Slippery When Wet vs The Joshua Tree.

 

[U2Kitten]

I think there might be a difference in how U2 was/is perceived in the U.S. and in other parts of the world. Speaking from an American perspective, everyone - fans and media alike - seemed to think U2 could do no wrong back in 1987. It wasn't until Rattle and Hum in 1988 that they began to get some media backlash. And I don't remember a whole lot of criticism in the American media over Achtung Baby or Zoo TV. (Then again, maybe I wasn't paying that much attention since I wasn't on the Internet then and didn't have access to tons of articles about the band like I do now). They did get trashed pretty badly in the States over Pop, but I've heard the album and tour were received much better overseas. And now everyone seems to love the band again.

As for U2 being perceived as super-serious in the Joshua Tree era, I think that was just an image the media latched onto. In a way I can understand why - after all, they DID seem awfully serious compared to other rock bands at the time - but I think it was a pretty narrow definition. All you had to do is watch the video for ISHFWILF to see the band's silly side!

Exactly

The serious thing was a product of the media, but sadly, it has carried over now to the point that some younger fans or people who weren't into them then are now judging that era by the myth that was created, and that's a misconception it's up to long time fans like us to clear up

Thanks for mentioning ISHFWILF too, perfect example! I still have more smiling JT pics I have to post but I don't have time right now.

Bringing up the other bands of the day is a good point too, they did look serious compared to the outrageous hair bands with their brightly colored extreme images. When you look like that it's harder to be taken seriously as an artist (as happened with U2 when they got all mulitcolored and funky in Pop?!) and your music is disregarded. I actually like Every Rose has Its Thorn and a lot of the other hair band stuff, there are some good lyrics, even by Warrant. But again, the media, and the myth in retrospect

U2's music was more serious, because it was important, and what's wrong with that? They are trying to save the world, that's a pretty big task!

Finally, I would like to say that I am proud I was never influenced by the media. I like or dislike whatever suits my taste regardless of what "they" say, and have always already formed my opinion before ever seeing any praise or backlash.

 

[Chizip]

I think some people are thinking people saying they were serious as if it was a bad thing. Which it wasn't, it was what was needed at the time.

U2 has always done the opposite of what the current music trend is, as they like to "fuck up the mainstream." In the 80's most music was very silly and unserious (is that a word?), so what did U2 do? They made serious music that ended up being ver popular. Huge shows with lasers and lights and smoke and big hair were the thing, U2 had a very simplistic concert set up.

Then, at the start of the 90's the grunge phase came along which was all serious about music and very simplistic in stage set up. What did U2 do? They went all out to have a new perception, exciting, colorful, funny, and they started to do the huge live shows.

Than the pop scene (Britney, N'Sync...) came along and their music is thought of as fun and they put on huge shows with screens and smoke and dancers and what not, so what did U2 do, they went back to being more serious and soulfull. And they went back to a more basic live set up, as they said, "These days anyone can put on a huge live show, but U2 is the only band that can come out with the house lights on and rock the place."

So as you can see, I think even U2 wanted to put off an image as more serious than the other bands at the time. That way people would take their music more seriously, and be around longer than the other sillier bands at the time. And I think their strategy worked perfectly. So it's not a bad thing to say they were serious.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

You're not serious are you? Actually, you raise some very good points, Chizer. As people, however, I honestly don't think U2 have ever been a serious band. The one true constant has been how seriously they take their music. A lot of people get that confused with them being serious as individuals, which I believe is a common mistake.

 

[Bono's shades]

The one true constant has been how seriously they take their music. A lot of people get that confused with them being serious as individuals, which I believe is a common mistake.

Well said!

 

[Chizip]

are you serious?

so one cant have serious times and not serious times?

a serious person can at times not be serious, and a non serious person at times can be serious.

for every non serious thing they did in the 80's there were about 5 serious things they did. in the 90's it's more of the complete opposite.

ok i pulled 5 out of my ass but you get the point.

seriously, is larry not serious?

 

[U2Kitten]

My computer ist too slow now to copy and paste them all but if you go to PLEBA there's a thread called "Where the thread has no shame" and it's all JT band pics, some serious, some laughing! Take a look!

 

[Chizip]

im not denying there are plenty of pics of them being goofy and laughing and having a good time in the 80's. im just saying when you compare the 2 eras, the 90's is seen as a much less serious U2.

Why do you think Bono came up with the fly character. So he could be someone else who wasn't taken so seriously, who didn't have to champion every needy cause out there. He wanted to take a step back from the serious hero role.

And it seems like people still think that people who think U2 were more serious in the 80's are criticizing them. I think it was a great thing they were serious, it was what music needed back then. If they weren't serious than the music might not be as relevant today, as all the non serious 80's music is seen as a novelty these days.

Yay for serious U2!

Yay for non serious U2!

Variety is the spice of life!

It's all good in my hood.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

I still feel it's not that U2 were that much more serious in the 80s (though, I think they were to some extent), but moreso the media's perception of them as a serious band. That's why U2 began taking pot shots at their "former selves" and creating characters like The Fly -- it was to manipulate the perception of them in the media, not necessarily themselves as individuals persay.

 

[Chizip]

so what makes up a bands image? their songs, the way they dress, ther live shows, their videos?

I dont want to get into the songs because everyone has their own interpretation what is serious or not, but we can agree their music had a serious element to them in the 80's, as they do now as well.

But, if you look at the way they dressed in the 80's, nothing flashy or fun, just normal serious clothes and haircuts. (Compared to what else was going on at the time, makes them look even more serious) In the 90's we've got them wearing funny, less serious clothes and even costume changes during the shows.

The lives shows in the 80's were had a serious element to them (again especially compared to what else was going on). No special effects, dressed normally, just them up there playing. Look at them in the 90's, I don't even thinkI have to go into that, it's self explanatory.

Their videos in the 80's were all much more serious too. With the exception of ISHFWILF, none of them really have a funny element to them. It's them riding around in horses in the snow in black and white. And the 90's brought us videos like EBTTRT, Discotheque, Numb...

So I think it's funny if someone says they weren't more serious in the 80's. Every aspect of the band was presented in a much more serious manner. And to blame the perception on the media is weak, what was the media supposed to latch onto, most of what U2 did as a band was presented in a serious manner.

Sheesh.

But like I've said, serious U2 is good. Non serious U2 is good. Being serious isnt a bad thing, so it is not a criticism. Yay for U2!

 

[Michael Griffiths]

While I agree that their videos were presented differently, I wouldn't say they were necessarily more serious all the time. Many 90s U2 videos are quite serious as well. Further, I don't think U2 dressed particularily seriously at all in the 80s, and nor was their staging very serious. If anything, it was kind of a neutral dress as well as a neutral staging, neither serious nor glitzy. In the 90s, however, U2 proactively dressed a certain way and proactively made their staging very "loud", which in comparason, makes us think they dressed and performed in a serious way in the 80s, when in actual fact, they did not. It's simply the contrast that askews the perception. And that's what U2 tried to do (using the contrast to manipulate the media and apparently some of their fans), and it looks like they succeeded.

 

[Chizip]

neutral dressing and neutral stages in music at that time, heck even today should be considered serious. because when you compare neutral to everything else out there, it appears serious. if u2 wasn't serious at that time, then i would like to hear what you would considered how one would need to be dressed, and how would would need to put on a show that would be considered "serious."

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Read this Mother Jones interview with Bono from 1989...and then we'll talk some more.

Part 1: http://atu2.com/news/article.src?ID=930&Key=&Year=1989&Cat=5

Part 2: http://atu2.com/news/article.src?ID=931&Key=&Year=1989&Cat=5

 

[Chizip]

ok, what about it, bono seemed very serious in that interview, so whats your point?

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Have you read both parts already, in depth, and studied them? Methinks you haven't. Come back when you have.

 

[Chizip]

just tell me what your point is

 

[Michael Griffiths]

No. Absorb the interview, think about it, and then we'll talk. If not, that's fine too.

 

[Chizip]

its fully absorbed buddy, now continue