U2's Weakest Link?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

jick

Refugee
Joined
Aug 22, 2002
Messages
2,054
Location
Philippines
Sure many would say that Clayton is U2's weakest link - no lyrical contribution ever, missed the gig, only non-Christian, womanizer, hack bass lines --- but I beg to disagree with these people. I think U2's weakest link is Paul McGuiness.

First, he failed to relocate the band in a more marketable city like London or New York - hence, although U2 wrote better music than the Beatles and lasted much longer - they never reached their full popularity potential. Bono, Edge, Clayton, and Mullen don't ring people's ears like Lennon, McCartney, Harrison, and Starr -- and it's more because of wrong marketing.

Second, McGuiness took U2 under his wings when they were still young and changeable. He never instilled discipline in them. Up to this day, the band members can't lay off the booze - Clayton missed a gig because of it, Bono has a minor throat operation (or was it sinus operation) because he couldn't lay off the cigarettes. McGuinness never asserted himself and play big brother to the band despite being the manager and the oldest member.

Third, connected to the part about non-discipline - McGuinness has made U2 the epitome of studio slackers. It takes them forever to release albums, he just lets Bono jump around from country to country in his crusade. Thanks to McGuinness machinations, U2 have no deadlines to meet and they are so filthy rich (kudos to McGuinness again!) that they don't care how long it will take them to finish their albums.

Fourth, the POP fiasco can be greatly attributed to McGuinness. As manager, he was responsible for booking the POP tour dates, and be booked them too early - way too eary before U2 could finish the album. So U2 had to rush the album and start touring unprepared. The rest is history. McGuinness should have found a way to cancel the dates or postpone the tour and give U2 their time to finish POP. Many have also said the POP was poorly promoted, the KMart stunt got them off in the wrong foot, the choice of singles was wrong - and even their videos were mediocre. Once again, blame goes to McGuinness for his mismanagement of the band.

Fifth, McGuinness makes decisions that don't make sense. At this late in U2's career where they are so filthy rich and they are no longer artistically, financially, or creatively as hungry as before, McGuiness let U2 sign for three greatest hits album package. The first one was no problem, and the second one was a bit problematic (they lacked material because they didn't have any many albums as the 80s) so U2 had to "strech" a bit and include ATYCLB which was actually a new era. Now, since U2 aren't hungry anymore, their next album will probably be out spring 2005 and the next one probably on 2010. So the next U2 greatest hits package will be the sum total of two albums only - how pitiful. McGuinness lacked foresight in thinking U2 could record albums at the same rate as they did in their younger days. He failed to calculate and realize that U2 aren't as hungry and the desire doesn't burn as deep anymore.

Fifth and a half (after this edit), McGuinness also showed great lack of foresight with his choice of release dates. He released Achtung around the time Michael Jackson's album was the hot commodity, he chose to release the Best Of 1980-1990 the same time as Alanis' much anticipated second effort, and ATYCLB was released with Outkast and Jay-Z -- all of which contributed to U2's massive failured to land a #1 debut album. He chooses the wrong dates because he doesn't study them intently.

Sixth, despite all his failures and lapses as a manager, he still gets a cool 1/5th of the share of U2 - meaning his contribution is just like that of any band member. But you all know McGuinness' help to the band isn't as much as Bono, Edge, Clayton, or Mullen. He is ripping off the band and getting more than he deserves. The band are just too blinded to see it because McGuinness has been their manager the past three decades so the band doesn't know any other way --- or the "right" way so to speak.

If U2 were properly managed, they could have been bigger than the Beatles, Elvis and Frank Sinatra all rolled into one. Unfortunately, they have their weakest link who is their manager. Now, U2 are too old to ditch him. Its too late to fulfill the unfulfilled promise and potential. But then again, no band was ever perfect so we have to deal with the "could haves" and "would haves". So to all of you, I don't think Clayton is the weakest link, I think it's McGuinness.

Cheers,

J
 
Last edited:
jick said:
Up to this day, the band members can't lay off the booze - Clayton missed a gig because of it, Bono has a minor throat operation (or was it sinus operation) because he couldn't lay off the cigarettes.

I'm quite sure it was a sinus operation after chronic sinus infections. There's a surgery that often helps, if you need the problem taken care of, like being in the middle of a world tour. Either that or Bono had nodes removed, or both. And nodes aren't just because of booze and smoking, a lot of good singers get them once or twice. For example, my boyfriend had some removed a while back and he never smokes and rarely drinks. It's just a common "injury" to a singer, like tennis elbow to a tennis player. Anyway, back to the topic....
 
Adam is only a cardboard cutout anyway, remember? :lol:
 
Last edited:
the points you try to argue are not very strong at all. actually quite ridiculous. you don't seem to know much about what you are talking about.

-relocating= name popularity
-manager responsible for drinking/smoking habits
-manager forcing bono to stay in the studio and not have an outside life
AND BEST YET...
-u2 rescheduling an album release due to ...ALANIS!

haha, very funny.
 
He's not their daddy, their God or their conscience, and in case you've forgotten they are grown men. Don't kid yourself, he's not completely running the show. For the most part they are running him.
jick you forgot to take your happy pills again. :happy: What's next the wife and kids are to blame for the delay? :D
 
I'm not sure its correct to speculate that there will only be two albums in this decade. No one knew about Zooropa right?

I do agree that McGuiness made a mistake with agreeing to a 3rd "Best Of" album at the end of the decade.


I'm glad that the band is not as big as "the Beatles, Elvis and Frank Sinatra all rolled into one." I think it makes them all the more special. As for moving the band to London or New York so that they could reach their "full popularity potential," it couldn't matter less if they ever did that. Who knows that that "full popularity potential" is anyways?
 
:eyebrow: Maybe, but I read an article about different managers of groups, and how many screwed over their band/group/artist, it listed ways they did it, or some idea they had, the messed them up, how that effected their client. McGuinness is saint compared to some managers.

U2 own all the copyrights to their songs, very few bands have that. And it's McGuinness who negotiated that. You can thank the 'weakest link' you don't hear U2 songs in pepsi ads, shoe ads, etc., if they want to let someone use their song, its up to U2, not their label. U2 turned down some +$20 million dollars for some car company to use "where the streets" in an ad.

You've heard the song, "Like a Rock"?, you know that wasn't a jingle some a guy working for dodge or whatever came up with just for that company.

He lets them make their own creative choices, he didn't share the Christian beliefs of the members that had them, and read the lyrics to October album. In the UF documentary, when Eno is talking about the length of Pride, its too long, McGuinness is like, that doesn't matter, is the song good?

just because radio wants everything under 4 minutes...

Those song title copyrights, are the best thing any manager could get for a band.

Again with Adam's the weakest (okay 2nd to you) link?

"Adam literally got me by the scruff of the neck and roped me into U2. I didn't really want to be in a band. I was only into it for the sake of the sound of electric guitar, drums, bass and singing. So when he started talking about actually playing gigs I thought,'What, y' mean playing gigs in front of other people?' The thought had never dawned on me. But Adam believed in the band before anyone did - he'd made up his mind at 15 or 16 that rock 'n' roll was what he was going to do. -Bono

Who would say Adam is the weakest link do to the reasons you listed. Adam might be a Christian these days, you can honestly hang around 3 people, for 20+ years, and not maybe grew closer to what they believe. From what I get from Bono, Adam isn't the "outsider" in that respect anymore.

Lyrics? well you know for sure, that Adam and Larry too, have not in some way contributed to the lyrics? I doubt it, just 1 line would be a contribution.

It was Adam's idea to have that open heart in the stage for elevation tour,... I'm sure U2 know just how important each member is.

If there was a weak link in U2, or their manager, they would not have lasted this long. The Beatles broke up, and they're supposed to be the best band ever? not exactly a fitting definition of band. IMO.
 
Last edited:
I don't know much about tecnicalities about managing a band, but McGuiness did a great job IMO. First he helped them getting a deal, then he helped them get the copyright to their songs, and he (probably) helped them with less time restrains to make albums (unlike majority of new artists in the industry today who not only have to keep up the frantic 2 year album/tour pace but are additionally under pressure to sell good - or they'll loose their contract), the artistic freedom to make the music they want, right down to the album sleeve design (again, unlike majority of today's artist that get everything dictated by their management and label), and I think they also get percentage from album sales.

I don't think a location is that important, not all great bands come from New York or London. Personally, I don't think U2 - Bono - are as strong songwriters as Lennon/McCartney were, though in a way all bands fall short when it comes to the Beatles.

Is it really the manager's job to discipline a band? Brian Epstein didn't stop the Beatles experimenting with drugs, just like Elvis' manager didn't stop him. (not to mention several other artists)

Again, having more time to record can be good - band is under less pressure and can concentrate on the quality of the music more. (U2 did record and tour a lot in the 80's anyway)

True, but the band could have just as easily said "we need more time" for POP album and tour. (personally I also blame the lack of good songwriting)

3 Best ofs for 3 decades. Yes, the 90's Best of could have more B-sides, but then again, you can't please everyone. If the album comes out in 2004, they tour in 2005, next album can be out in 2008 if they keep that rate. (maybe another Zooropa can happen?) 3 albums featured is enough for me.

Um, AFAIK, Achtung Baby, the first Best of and ATYCLB all did very well in sales.

Paul McGuiness did A LOT for the band - see first paragraph. It's only fair he gets 1/5. (hey, Brian Epstein and Colonel both got 25%) I remember Bono saying in a TV interview "He got us the best financial deals, often undercutting himself unlike most managers."

*edit* Bigger than Sinatra, Elvis and the Beatles? No one will ever achieve that IMO. Personally, I don't think U2 could be much bigger than they are - arguably the biggest thing in music the last 15 years, and - the way things are going in music industry - probably the last hugely succesful band.
 
Last edited:
U2girl said:
Personally, I don't think U2 - Bono - are as strong songwriters as Lennon/McCartney were, though in a way all bands fall short when it comes to the Beatles.

True, but the band could have just as easily said "we need more time" for POP album and tour. (personally I also blame the lack of good songwriting)

If the album comes out in 2004, they tour in 2005, next album can be out in 2008 if they keep that rate. (maybe another Zooropa can happen?) 3 albums featured is enough for me.

Paul McGuiness did A LOT for the band - see first paragraph. It's only fair he gets 1/5. (hey, Brian Epstein and Colonel both got 25%) I remember Bono saying in a TV interview "He got us the best financial deals, often undercutting himself unlike most managers."

*edit* Bigger than Sinatra, Elvis and the Beatles? No one will ever achieve that IMO. Personally, I don't think U2 could be much bigger than they are - arguably the biggest thing in music the last 15 years, and - the way things are going in music industry - probably the last hugely succesful band.

So Bono isn't as strong as Lennon/McCartney, the POP fiasco according to you was due to bad songwriting, and U2 never had the potential to be bigger than Sinatra, Elvis and the Beatles. Where is your faith in the band? Why even bother in this U2 message forum?

Three albums featured is enough for you? That's too little. And how did you come up with three albums considering we can only have the 2004/2005 album and the 2008/2009 album (which is two albums)? A Zooropa-like spur-of-the-moment album is quite unlikely at this point, and U2 aren't getting any younger or aren't getting any more productive, while Bono is getting busier and busier globetrotting. Even assuming for the sake of argument the next Best Of is three albums worth - that would probably be a 17 track album, two new tracks and 5 each from the three albums - that would be ridiculous!

As to Bono's quote about McGuinness undercutting himself unlike most managers, Bono has no basis because he has never been a manager himself or has not experienced having another manager - unless he was talking about U2's first manager, Clayton. But I never came accross any readings that indicate that Clayton ripped-off the band and took the lion's share of the profits in his short stint as manager.

I think if U2 were properly managed and had their base of operations in a bigger more marketable city, U2 would have been the most popular and most marketable band of all time.

Cheers,

J
 
Yes, Bono is not equal to Lennon/McCartney - besides U2 always have been fans of the Beatles, just like Bono has been known for his fondness on Lennon, always ackowledging he's been an influence and inspiration, NEVER saying he was even equal in songwriting, much less better.

Like I said, I "also" blame the songwriting, along with the early tour booking and, let's face it, not everyone liked their image/sound at the time.

Yup, I say again, there is no way any artist/band would reach the Beatles/Elvis/Sinatra level. The closest anyone can get at this time is U2.

Three albums for the Best of: additional songs from ATYCLB will likely be featured (last Best of only had Beautiful day and Stuck), "Solar" and it's follow up.

Perhaps Bono has been talking to other artists and has heard stories of their managers, I don't think he was just babbling around.

I am just talking realistically, not pessimistically unlike yourself.

*edit* And another thing: if marketing is all that when it comes to success and popularity, how come Beatles or Elvis or Sinatra ring more ears than probably most current acts? They had nowhere near the amount of various marketing tools, no huge labels to back them up, no massive media support...

You know, I probably should resent the remarks about not having doubt in the band or why I bother being at this site, but knowing your history, it's just too cute and funny.
 
Last edited:
U2girl and thrillme-excellent posts, both of you. :up:.

I think even U2 would be the first to admit that they're not intending on being greater than the Beatles/Elvis/Frank Sinatra. They greatly admire all three of those artists, yes. But I don't care who the band is, or how much I may love a certain artist, nobody's ever going to top the Beatles or Sinatra or Elvis. That's just how it is. Certainly doesn't mean that U2 isn't good or anything, though. They're certainly one of the most important and bands to ever come out, and will definitely be remembered for years to come.

As for Paul McGuiness, like thrillme's post said, he's been a pretty decent manager, compared to some of the horror stories I've heard about other bands and their relationships with their managers. I think Paul's done a fine job with the band. From the stuff I've read about him and his explanations of how he handles the band, I'm very impressed-he's quite the rarity as far as rock managers go (then again, U2's a pretty unique band to manage to begin with).

Angela
 
No-one's going to top The Beatles or Elvis? Ha. U2 did that a looong time ago. I can see where the Sinatra folk are coming from, but personally I don't see what's so special about the Beatles and Elvis - I feel they're the most over-rated artists/bands of all time.

Just thought I'd say my piece. I've found this discussion rather interesting, personally.
 
Jick, you are grasping at straws. First, why should PM worry about release dates of other artists if U2 is to be bigger than the Fab4/King/Chairman? You would think It'd be the other way around.

The use of booze/smoking is problematic, but many other artists, INCLUDING the benchmarks cited, have done much worse.

The third GH album is not a big issue if you think outside the box for a minute. It doesn't have to follow the pattern set by the first two. Im thinking a concert anthology like springsteen's 1975-85 would be nice. I'd also like to see some of their early non-album singles get released as a set.

Finally, U2's position in music history won't be fully measured until they are done. Comparing active artists with inactive ones never made much sense to me. As a band they have out lasted, in terms of years of service, the Beatles and Zeppelin COMBINED!

FWIW, A recent poll showed U2 trailing only the Beatles and Stones in terms of best band of all time. I don't know if I believe that completely, but Im damn sure OK with it. We will know U2's importance 20 years from now when THEY are the band that others are judged by.

In my mind, this band has made the most out of limited talent. They got where they are by working their collective asses off. Not by being lazy. Anthing they do from now on is just icing.

Yeah, sure, Paul really stunk up the joint with this band......
 
Last edited:
Yes, McGuiness is the one holding the little known band called U2 from stardom. :rolleyes:

Not that I'm surprised, but your argument is poorly thought out without any really solid evidence to support your opinions, Jick, and often with false information or obviously biased opinion presented as fact.

-The members of U2 didn't want to relocate. Yeah, lets move the boys somewhere they don't want to live, force them away from friends and family, and shove them in a studio to work all the time. What tensions could possibly arise? :rolleyes:

-The boozing argument is just plain stupid and utterly false. To this day? If I recall, the missed gig occured in the mid 90s. It is now.... hmmm ...2004. Adam gave up drinking after the incident, and so far as I can tell is still sober to this day, and really, other than that there has been absolutely NO history of alcohol abuse in U2 (at least at the level that would garner notice in the rock n' roll world). As far as Bono's operation...that appears to be a sinus problem, so once again, your facts are not facts at all.

-A manager is not supposed to be a babysitter, nor is he supposed to cut band members off from other passions in their life. 3 or even 4 years between albums is not that bad, especially when you consider that U2 generally tours extensively for each album. Just because you think they take forever doesn't make it fact, and it certainly doesn't put any guilt on McGuinness. U2 ultimately make the decisions to do what they do.

-The POP 'fiasco.' McGuinness may have booked the dates in the end, but you can be sure not before he had U2's full consent, so the blame lies just as equally with U2 as it does with McGuinness. Same with the marketing for POP. And as others have pointed out, the Beatles never had the amount of marketing that today's bands have, and yet they still remain just as popular if not more popular than many of today's bands. Care to explain that one using your argument's logic?

-The release dates is just stupid too. We should be worrying about Alanis and JayZ? Remember, it's not all about how high it gets on the ratings, but whether or not people like the record. As you said, U2 are already filthy rich, so hitting #1 on the Billboard charts shouldn't be the goal. Writing solid records should be. I could care less about chart placement.


I don't know why I bother replying...boredom I guess. At least you're staying consistent, jick: presenting one inaccurate and weak argument after another. :down:
 
Clark W. Griswold said:
The use of booze/smoking is problematic, but many other artists, INCLUDING the benchmarks cited, have done much worse.

No kidding. We're not likely to find them on some "E! True Hollywood Story" or whatnot anytime soon talking about drug and alcohol abuse (thank god).

Also, great job with the rest of your post. Same with you, Diemen.

Angela
 
I think U2's weakest link are the fans that want to change them. We bitch about the manufactured pop bands, but then I've seen so many people in this forum want to "manufacture" U2 into something they're not.
 
This thread just makes no sense. This would assume that managers of rock bands get to tell them where to live, when to go to sleep, what not to drink or smoke, and what personal and political causes to support in their free time

How absurd. I see little that held U2 back because they are not back. I think you forget the onslaught of attention and publicity after ATYCLB; they were literally EVERYWHERE in every form of media. Bono still gets top billing here in NYC when he is spied eating dinner somewhere, and they somehow make a news story out of this.

U2 does the smart thing between albums and tours, which is to mellow out and get out of the spotlight. We are all aware of what over-exposure from the media does to people in this country. We eat them up, then we spit them out. Or as Bono said (paraphrasing) Crucifixion is the next door down the hall after Beatification.
 
Greatest hits deal was a fantastic one for them to sign AND the record label determines the release dates, so those arguments can be thrown away....

I do agree though that he gets a bit too much credit and the POP Mart incident should have never occured.
 
I guess I'm not understanding the necessity of this thread:eyebrow:

If U2 ever changed in any way, they would not be the group they are today. IT TAKES ALL FOUR OF THEM TO BE U2 - Bono, Edge, Larry and Adam would each tell us this.:love:

Let's find more constructive ideas to discuss in these forums.:yes:

My favorite is Bono, but I love all four of them. I wouldn't want to see them change in any way. Peace.:heart:
 
My God! If I wasn't a mod around here I'd speak my mind and say 'Who gives a fuck!' maybe add a :banghead:

But that's entirely non constructive :wink:
So I ask instead what's the point of pondering a whole bunch of what ifs? We could ponder what they all might have done with their lives if they weren't musicians. But they didnt do anything else, so it doesn't matter. Like this, I guess. They didn't do anything differently so why contemplate the potentially limitless different outcomes a few different decisions might have led to?
 
Back
Top Bottom