"The Overcorrection of Pop"

[MrBrau1]

In terms of touring I wonder what do people want them to do. They have come up with all the new video stuff and all the lightning, the switch of drums on LAPOE, the different kinds of stages for stadium and arenas, the confetti, the many changes on the set list (even if it's a little static right now, which shouldn’t be a shock), the comeback of many older songs, new versions for older and NEW songs (like The Fly, Elevation, One, Mysterious Ways, Vertigo, Yahweh), a new kind of spontaneity on their playing (like Larry adding new stuff on some songs every night), the use of new technology, even Adam being more out there. Damn, that seems pretty good to me. Just because they don't have a giant olive on a stick and Edge is not wearing a cowboy suit it doesn't mean that they are playing safe. I agree though that this and the last tours are a lot more conventional than their previous tours, no doubt about that, but that is not necessarily a bad thing. Why turn a rock n' roll show into a circus? I still believe that they are trying out many new things and in the future will do more tours with more imaginative ideas. I think they are just listening to what they feel like they need right now. After more than a decade of writing a whole new book on touring maybe it feels good to not feel like they should reinvent the whole thing all over again. And MAYBE they are not doing so because they simply don't have any groundbreaking ideas right now. But so what? That doesn't mean that will never come up with out of the box kind of stuff for future tours.

Perfect.

My only complaint about the tour is the lack of "Gone." And not because it's from Pop, but because it's my favorite song.

 

[U2Kitten]

The second quote is in response to the idea of U2 losing fans because of ZooTV:

"We don't need them"

No, this is a popular misquote. What he actually said was that they didn't need the "pop kids", as in teenyboppers who only liked trendy pop music, boy bands, etc. It had nothing to do with losing U2 fans because of Zoo TV.

 

[Layton]

No, this is a popular misquote. What he actually said was that they didn't need the "pop kids", as in teenyboppers who only liked trendy pop music, boy bands, etc. It had nothing to do with losing U2 fans because of Zoo TV.

Even with your accurate correction, I'm not sure they feel that way about pop kids anymore. They now seem to want to court them and then corrupt them with the ways of U2. It really all comes down to what is the most challenging thing, at the moment. In 1991, I think they were turned on by the challenge of "fucking up the mainstream". In 2000 'till now, I think they're being turned on by the challenge of being over 40 and taking on the marketplace more directly. In both cases, they weren't supposed to be successful at either. These guys are massive competitors for better and for worse. U2 goes through many incarnations, but as long as that challenge factor is still as strong as ever I'll know U2 still exists at their core.

 

[Chizip]

Even with your accurate correction, I'm not sure they feel that way about pop kids anymore. They now seem to want to court them and then corrupt them with the ways of U2. It really all comes down to what is the most challenging thing, at the moment. In 1991, I think they were turned on by the challenge of "fucking up the mainstream". In 2000 'till now, I think they're being turned on by the challenge of being over 40 and taking on the marketplace more directly. In both cases, they weren't supposed to be successful at either. These guys are massive competitors for better and for worse. U2 goes through many incarnations, but as long as that challenge factor is still as strong as ever I'll know U2 still exists at their core.

 

[MrBrau1]

Even with your accurate correction, I'm not sure they feel that way about pop kids anymore. They now seem to want to court them and then corrupt them with the ways of U2. It really all comes down to what is the most challenging thing, at the moment. In 1991, I think they were turned on by the challenge of "fucking up the mainstream". In 2000 'till now, I think they're being turned on by the challenge of being over 40 and taking on the marketplace more directly. In both cases, they weren't supposed to be successful at either. These guys are massive competitors for better and for worse. U2 goes through many incarnations, but as long as that challenge factor is still as strong as ever I'll know U2 still exists at their core.

I'll second that.

 

[2Hearts]

^I'll agree with that too.

I love SAFE music. It is my favorite genre.

 

[VertigoGal]

Re: Re: "The Overcorrection of Pop"

I think Chizip is a genius and I want to marry him.

The title of the thread says it all.

And I don't know why everyone is freaking out, he said he enjoys both ATYCLB and HTDAAB (as do I, HTDAAB is one of their best albums). This isn't a "current U2 sucks" thread, this is a "this is where I think U2 is right now, I wonder what path they will go down in the future" thread. And that last paragraph of yours Chizip summed it up perfectly... if they continue the back-to-roots sound and feel of their last two albums there will most likely be backlash. People have ADD, they can't deal with the same thing for too long. They will get bored of it. Just as people got tired of earnest preachy U2 with Rattle and Hum and ironic experimental U2 with Pop, they will get tired of this current U2 phase. The attention span of the masses is limited.

I really do think U2 is building a platform for themselves to be more daring and experimental again...they've proven twice over they are the biggest band in the world. No band can honestly compete with U2, and anyone that argues for Coldplay loses because Coldplay worships U2. Now that U2 has cemented themselves at the top of the world they are more free to experiment again. I think U2 will change again, though we may get one more "safe" album...which I'm fine with, often the third in a series is the best of the three (I'd take War over Boy/October and crazy me loves Pop more than Achtung/Zooropa).

Good post.

I too believe that this era will set the stage for a different kind of music. UF and JT were great albums, but by the time they got to R&H, they *were* too preachy, and they deserved a lot ot the backlash they got, and I'm glad they got it. I love Pop especially, but frankly I don't know how many more albums they could've made in that vein. They got some backlash, and (whether it's right or wrong) went in a more mainstream directions. And we got songs like Walk On and In a Little While, in my opinion great songs we'd never have gotten from Popmart U2. They're already starting to get a backlash from what I've seen, and I think it's a good thing...

 

[innocent_eyes]

These have been some really great posts articulating very valid and difficult to describe feelings and intentions behind current U2.

They are still st the core of who and what they are, they enjoy the challenge of beating up on mainstream music, with mainstream music. I mean, U2's "mainstream" stuff has more soul, etc, than really mainstream stuff. I think that was alot of what ATYCLB was about, Pop songs with SOUL...the goal is soul.

Kinda like how Zoo TV and the Fly used the maniacal rock star thing against itself, Bono says he was critisied for being a preacher more than a rock star, so he became an uber rock star!

Now they use popmusic to get into the mainstream consciesnous but offer more than your typical popstars.

I love it!

 

[Earnie Shavers]

This is the quote that scares me:

Bono - "It would not surprise me if this album, depending on which songs catch fire, or our next album will be by far our most popular," he says, noting that many of pop's best sellers are adult-oriented. "The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, Shania Twain. They made records for people ignored by the music business, which spends 80% of its marketing budget on 15- to 25-year-olds. We have an enormous audience potentially, if we're up to the task."

 

[Zoomerang96]

I have two quotes from Bono from sometime during ZooTV that really drive home the contrast for me. The subject is how a good portion of people didn't understand the point of ZooTV. The first quote is in response to how Bono felt about that:

"If they don't get it, I don't give a fuck"

The second quote is in response to the idea of U2 losing fans because of ZooTV:

"We don't need them"

These quotes can be found in the first and second full paragraphs on page 117 of 'Bono: His life, Musci, and Passions' by Laura Jackson.

Take the attitude in those quotes and take what appears to be U2's attitude now. You're telling me they haven't made a concsious decision here?

ahh...good times.

sometimes i forget that u2 weren't always safe dad-rockers.

great quotes.

 

[Zoomerang96]

This is the quote that scares me:

Bono - "It would not surprise me if this album, depending on which songs catch fire, or our next album will be by far our most popular," he says, noting that many of pop's best sellers are adult-oriented. "The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, Shania Twain. They made records for people ignored by the music business, which spends 80% of its marketing budget on 15- to 25-year-olds. We have an enormous audience potentially, if we're up to the task."

and now there's this.

notice how his focus is on sales, marketing, etc?

nothing about taking their music to the next level.

it's only gonna get worse before it gets better.

actually, at this point in the game, it won't get better folks.

 

[TheBrazilianFly]

Question for you Zoomerang96: Do you think U2 will someday go back to the way they used to be when you liked them?

 

[shaun vox]

u2 needs to give up!! just stop it!!

its just a joke now!!!!
the new albums suck, stage design's suck!!!
just stop its and get a regular job!!

 

[the soul waits]

and now there's this.

notice how his focus is on sales, marketing, etc?

nothing about taking their music to the next level.

it's only gonna get worse before it gets better.

actually, at this point in the game, it won't get better folks.

Dang, that IS a scary quote.
Shania Twain??????
That's what I meant all along and I'll say it again : IF they didn't have stated the infamous claim to be the biggest ba nd again, THEN their current approach would be more credible.
But now they don't even try to hide their focus on sales.

Really, do they NEED the money? Or do they WANT to money?

 

[LJT]

This is the quote that scares me:

Bono - "It would not surprise me if this album, depending on which songs catch fire, or our next album will be by far our most popular," he says, noting that many of pop's best sellers are adult-oriented. "The Eagles, Fleetwood Mac, Shania Twain. They made records for people ignored by the music business, which spends 80% of its marketing budget on 15- to 25-year-olds. We have an enormous audience potentially, if we're up to the task."

You know i think that is just an observation not a planned musical direction.......Come on, realistically, can you see U2 going for the over 30-50 market or whatever it is? Sure its the age range they are in but they like the challenge of getting 'new' younger fans hence the ipod commercials, the SNL appearances, the Superbowl, driving about New York on a flatbed truck...as these are the things that will get them new younger fans that stay with you til they are in their 50s/60s always even....and honestly when did anybody start taking things Bono says seriously?

 

[shaun vox]

u2 is $$$ a money making machine!!
well they aint getting shit from me!!!!!!!!!
i still dont believe you people feel for it and bought the u2ipod

 

[Lo-Fi]

I believe u2 still have something to give, but they're gonna have to hit that wall again, they need another R & H or Pop to snap them out of the routine they're in. If they come back with another safe album that's pop oreintated at 46 or 47 years of age they'll be in for a slamming, I've no doubt in my mind. The music mainstream will have shifted again, so u2 will need to do something more intresting.

I'm sick of their courtship with the mainstream music scene. They've always been there, but they did it by doing what they wanted to do, not what they felt they had to do. They are endanger of threatening their own legacy by putting out soft albums that are fine for a few months but lose substance quickly.

That's my biggest problem with the last two albums. They've been great for a couple of months then I've just stuck them on the top shelf to gather dust. That's never happend before and the only thing I can think of is because the albums are 'single' based or basically pop albums.

I actually want to see them fall flat on their face on the next record and get it totally wrong, mis-judge what they feel people want from them. It might knock sense into them and let them get it back to being about music than album sales and getting on radio 1 and the pop charts, tough love I believe they call it.

You CAN be a relevant band without being saturarted in the pop charts. No matter how soft u2 make the next record or the record after that, the fact remains one day MTV and R1 will say to them, 'No, you're too old to be on our station, go see VH1 and radio 2' it will happen. I'd prefer to see them head that scenario off at the pass and just make great music instead of being safe just for the sake of some mainstream radio play. They could end up coming across as really sad by the time they get too old and are still courting the mainstream.

I mean, I listen to The Ground Beneath Her Feet and Statless, and wonder what direction ATYCLB could have went, it could have been a stunning new sound. But it went somewhere else and ended up soft. I know this all sounds doom and gloom, but I still believe in the guys, I just think they are a little off centre in what they believe is relevancy and what isn't. Time will tell if they have the balls for another re-invention. I hope they still have the balls to do so.

 

[U2girl]

What a refreshing and exciting topic.

To people complaining about U2 competing with the mainstream, let's not forget back in the time of War Bono wanted the band to compete with the charts.
As for being the biggest band, they have kind of been working on that since 1987. You do remember Bono pointing out on JT tour they're number 1 in the US and the megalomaniac tours don't you? (best band in the world is highly subjective)
As for competing for the younger audiences, exactly where would U2 be if they didn't embrace JT or AB or ATYCLB?

 

[MrBrau1]

This same arguement is going on everywhere. With generally the same 3 or 4 posters getting everyone riled up. Some make smart comments. Some drop 1 liners followed by a Though most have a hard time with change.

here:
http://forum.interference.com/t132579.html

and here:
http://forum.interference.com/t131360.html

and here:
http://forum.interference.com/t132402.html

and here:
http://forum.interference.com/t133116.html

and here:
http://forum.interference.com/t131101.html

Best post in this thread!

 

[WildHoneyAlways]

For those of you bored with this conversation:

If I'm supposed to ignore all the asinine game threads you can ignore these type of threads.

Thank you.

 

[corianderstem]

i still dont believe you people feel for it and bought the u2ipod

Fell for what? I wanted an iPod and the U2 edition came along at the right time. And I love it. Best toy I ever bought.

But this thread is really interesting. Keep it up!

 

[Zoomerang96]

For those of you bored with this conversation:

If I'm supposed to ignore all the asinine game threads you can ignore these type of threads.

Thank you.

exactly.

 

[Bono's shades]

What a refreshing and exciting topic.

To people complaining about U2 competing with the mainstream, let's not forget back in the time of War Bono wanted the band to compete with the charts.
As for being the biggest band, they have kind of been working on that since 1987. You do remember Bono pointing out on JT tour they're number 1 in the US and the megalomaniac tours don't you? (best band in the world is highly subjective)

I don't think most of us are objecting to U2 aspiring to be a big-selling band rather than an indie band. I was thrilled when they became superstars in 1987. The difference between now and then is U2 refused to sell their musical souls in order to make it big. And if cynically trying to make music to appeal to the lame demographic that actually thinks Shania Twain is worth wasting thier money on isn't selling your musical soul, I don't know what is.

 

[salim117]

Someone used this phrase in another thread to describe the current phase of U2, and I think it is a very accurate description. If I had to use just one word to describe the current U2, the word I would use would be:

Safe


But is this era of a safe U2 here to stay, or is it just being used as a foundation to be more daring in the future? Now that they've reclaimed the title of "Biggest Band in the World" will they go back after the title of "Best Band in the world?" If they continue to be safe, it could lead them down the same path of irrelevancy that a misplaced daring path would have lead them.

See http://forum.interference.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=129210

 

[Chizip]

thats a good thread you had there

 

[MrBrau1]

"We really questioned whether we should do something completely different, or whether we should use that format again. But, in the end, the only reason to not do it would be because we did it last time."

This quote tells the whole story. Why has it not been mentioned? Maybe they didn't have any new touring ideas, so they went with what worked. Should they become a slave to the reinvention so many U2 fans cling to? Or do what works? They're never going to top Zoo TV. They're never going to top Popmart. They're 45. Not 30.

One thing they are doing is playing better on the past 2 tours than any before. It's a fact. Listen to the shows. They're a better band. Tighter, more sure. But hey let's talk about the lights.

Do you really want change, only for changes sake? Without an inspiration or focus? Is the band playing on the stage that much of a secondary concern to U2 fans? Seems so. The songs on their albums get judged not on their own musical merits, but on attitude of purpose.

I'd love them to play on a stage with 4 spotlights and nothing else. That would probably make most people here run from the venue with vomit pouring from their mouths. "They've done that before!"

 

[U2girl]

I don't think most of us are objecting to U2 aspiring to be a big-selling band rather than an indie band. I was thrilled when they became superstars in 1987. The difference between now and then is U2 refused to sell their musical souls in order to make it big. And if cynically trying to make music to appeal to the lame demographic that actually thinks Shania Twain is worth wasting thier money on isn't selling your musical soul, I don't know what is.

I think that is exactly the problem for some people: that U2 gained popularity with the last two albums, that they want to be on the charts and want to get new audiences. None of that is new in U2's history, arguably some of it is what kept them around for so long.

People are entitled to like Shania Twain and I didn't know The Eagles and Fleetwod Mac are well known crap bands. U2's demographic already covers more than the 15-25 MTV/labels demographic anyway. If getting new audiences is cynical, than U2 has been cynical for a long while now.

 

[U2girl]

For those of you bored with this conversation:

If I'm supposed to ignore all the asinine game threads you can ignore these type of threads.

Thank you.

Game threads have nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

You can always ignore those who are tired of the bashing.

Thank you.

 

[bedouin fire]

It's almost as if the "failure" of Pop/Popmart shook the extraordinary confidence Bono and the band once had and has lead them into this current era of U2.

as the great morrissey sings, america is not the world. pop & popmart was a huge success in europe and south america:

pop topped basically all european charts

popmart sold out all european concerts (for stadium audiences of 50.000 and more), and in many countries by the time of the concerts (six and seven months after the album release) the album went again to nr 1 in the charts.

why it didn't happen in america, i have my ideas but it's better to keep them for me.

but i agree that, unfortunately, from 2000 on the process of making music for u2 has been often disturbed by the idea "we have to please the american mainstream and sell millions there".

on the other hand, and despite my little disapointmet with that, i can't think of anything else that could please me more now than to listen to this blessed bootleg that i got last week from the second vertigo@twickenham show.

 

[liamcool]

If U2 just brought back Twilight already, we wouldn't have any of these threads, and we wouldn't have anyone complaining. We've have a group playing a tight, rock song that will give them inspiration and point them in the direction for their next record. Come on, Twilight and Mercy do have a similar opening riff.