U2 Feedback

U2 Feedback (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/)
-   Every Artist Is A Cannibal, Every Poet Is A Thief (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f193/)
-   -   U2 by U2: another mistake of the 2000's? (https://www.u2interference.com/forums/f193/u2-by-u2-another-mistake-of-the-2000s-190183.html)

ImOuttaControl 10-08-2008 07:00 PM

U2 by U2: another mistake of the 2000's?
 
I've recently come to the conclusion that U2 by U2 is mainly crap. For a band still relevant and in the mainstream and whose story isn't yet finished, is a book like this not a little premature?

I bought the book right when it came out and was first excited to see the format copied from The Beatles Anthology. The only difference between the Beatles book and U2 by U2 is that the Beatles Anthology is actually interesting.

If I'm gonna nitpick, they don't even know their own history at times! I love the part where edge says that Acrobat never became a live favorite....ummm...is that because it was never played live?

Another annoyance of the book is the fact that U2 seem like they have a self esteem issue about anything POP related. Rather than tell anything insightful or even interesting, most of U2's comments about this era are "it was a good idea that never really became a great song."

U2 At The End of the World was a great book, full of interesting, fun stories but mixed with the serious side of U2. I think U2 by U2 shows a pretty dry, boring version of U2.

What could have saved this book?

Time--U2's story is not complete. Maybe if they'd waited a few years...I mean, how can you put an album that's only been out a couple of years into perspective?

Interviews-- They should have included the people who've made U2 who they are, such as Willie Williams, Eno, Lanios, Flood, Lillywhite...heck I would even love to hear Thomas's take on recording with U2 for HTDAAB. This in and of itself would have given the book a much greater perspective and allowed some outside opinion; much like the Beatles Anthology included George Martin, Derek Taylor...etc. Their perspectives are as much fun to read as those of the actual band members.

Anyway, time for me to shelve U2 by U2...hopefully in 10 years there will be a revised edition that includes the many "5th members" of U2.

digitize 10-08-2008 07:05 PM

Ahh... it sounds to me like you are simply looking for faults in the book.

ImOuttaControl 10-08-2008 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by digitize (Post 5521578)
Ahh... it sounds to me like you are simply looking for faults in the book.

No, I tried to like it...I bought it the day it came out and it's been read cover to cover...I just finally come to the conclusion that, in my opinion, it's crap.

They've lived such fascinating lives...this book is like the watered down, semi-history... For comparison, read The Beatles Anthology(the format that U2 copied for their book). The good, bad and ugly was included, and it made the read much more interesting.

As I already said, U2 at the End of the World gave much better insight into the history, psychology, and personality of the band members.

Screwtape2 10-08-2008 07:25 PM

I think U2 by U2 is a great, holy grail type book for some people while for others it is a mixed bag or less. In the end, that's because people wanted different things. The original poster wanted better stories like those found in previous books. I personally wanted more behind the scenes information of albums and songs.

What you end up getting is a biography with some revisionist history which in the end is what most autobiographies end up having. In my opinion, that's not very good reading because Bono is the only member interesting enough for a biography.

The music and the influences are what is really interesting. The most disappointing thing about the book for me was how little they actually talked about the making of the albums and songs. I don't think you can put that on the band. The questions and ques were pretty boring based on the responses.

Moser 10-08-2008 07:26 PM

I found U2 by U2 very interesting. I read it in a few days.

ImOuttaControl 10-08-2008 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Screwtape2 (Post 5521600)
I think U2 by U2 is a great, holy grail type book for some people while for others it is a mixed bag or less. In the end, that's because people wanted different things. The original poster wanted better stories like those found in previous books. I personally wanted more behind the scenes information of albums and songs.

What you end up getting is a biography with some revisionist history which in the end is what most autobiographies end up having. In my opinion, that's not very good reading because Bono is the only member interesting enough for a biography.

The music and the influences are what is really interesting. The most disappointing thing about the book for me was how little they actually talked about the making of the albums and songs. I don't think you can put that on the band. The questions and ques were pretty boring based on the responses.

You said it better than I was able to put it...my sentiments exactly.

I wanted those behind the scenes type things...I would have loved to hear the perspective of producers and those in U2's inner circle. And yes, I also would have like to hear a bit more of the "darker side" the boozing period where they were hangin with supermodels and presidents alike.

LemonMelon 10-08-2008 07:58 PM

I very much enjoyed it. It wasn't particularly dark, nor was it highly critical of the band's work, but I find hearing about their spiritual life and inspiration for writing the songs very interesting. That's just me. Like Screwtape2 said, it's all about what you came in wanting/expecting that will dictate your opinion of the book.

Rachel D. 10-08-2008 08:05 PM

I like it mostly the way it is. It would be boring if they just talked about how they made the albums and I'm glad they didn't get into too much technical detail with how they do that stuff. :yawn: And, if they talked to other people that work(ed) with the band, the it wouldn't be U2 by U2, would it? If you want people other than the band talking about different things, then you should read U2 Show.

I think they put out the book (and U2 18) in 2006 rather than later was because it was their 30th anniversary of becoming a band. That's a pretty good point to stop and reflect a little, if you ask me. And I don't get why some people are so disappointed that there's not more "dirt." We're talking about U2, you know; they aren't exactly known for that kind of thing and probably wouldn't want to reveal anything shocking while they're still a band.

As LemonMelon stated, I also enjoyed reading about their spirituality and the meanings of songs from the band members themselves.

intedomine 10-08-2008 08:11 PM

I think the problem is that they seemed to have a disproportionate amount of content for each era.

Not enough 90's content.

U2 76-86 seems to be the entire first half of the book, while the second half is 86-05

david 10-08-2008 08:21 PM

Uhm, U2 by U2 was great. The book about them released in 1987 called Unforgettable Fire was too soon and kind of crap and really premature.

bonocomet 10-08-2008 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LemonMelon (Post 5521636)
I very much enjoyed it. It wasn't particularly dark, nor was it highly critical of the band's work, but I find hearing about their spiritual life and inspiration for writing the songs very interesting. That's just me. Like Screwtape2 said, it's all about what you came in wanting/expecting that will dictate your opinion of the book.


I agree here. I think what went into their telling of their story was what is important to them, not necessarily everyone else. Maybe those "dark" times they don't find as meaningful to themselves, but it's the "spiritual" stuff that they felt was important to their story.
And I liked all the pretty pictures.

last unicorn 10-09-2008 01:45 AM

U2 by U2 is a U2 autobiography, it's the band telling their story. There are other books who give "behind the scenes" look or that are about the people and production surrounding U2, their albums and their concerts. This one is a more intimate book and focuses on the history of the band as seen by the band. It's a great, beautiful, insightful, also funny book and it's exactly what I expected it to be. I also found it very sincere. Just because they say something in the book that doesn't fit someone's opinion - e. g. about Pop - it doesn't mean they shouldn't say it that way, because that's obviously how they feel about it. The book isn't bad just because your expectations were different or because you wanted U2 to say other things, it's not the book's fault.

DevilsShoes 10-09-2008 04:03 AM

I don't think U2 by U2's a mistake, I think its a great read, one of the very best books on the band, up there with End of the World and U2 Live. For a band so reluctant to discuss the past, I found it fascinating.

For years Bono was unable to really appreciate the work they did in the eighties, feeling that the lyrics were half-baked or that he was singing in too high a key and sounded like a girl, he's finally been able to put all that to rest and see its strengths and I think he is really proud of that whole era now. Its also great to hear his thoughts on the songs he wrote when he was a much younger man.

Some of the stories I'd never heard before whilst others were presented in much more detail, like the bands early experiences of touring, the pressures of huge fame, the confusion they felt at the end of the eighties, the lack of the direction in the mid nineties and the personal issues surrounding the Vertigo tour.

Maybe it was a bit premature, but you never know, we might get a updated version one day.

The Sad Punk 10-09-2008 04:50 AM

It's okay. That's really all I can say about it. It gets some jobs done, it doesn't get to others. I wasn't expecting too much.

Quote:

Originally Posted by intedomine (Post 5521659)
I think the problem is that they seemed to have a disproportionate amount of content for each era.

Not enough 90's content.

U2 76-86 seems to be the entire first half of the book, while the second half is 86-05

I didn't think there was enough 76-86!

Aardvark747 10-09-2008 05:30 AM

I liked it. Though it bugs me how I paid £35 for something so huge that it doesnt fit on any shelf, and the other day I saw it for a fiver in HMV in a new "squashed down comfortable bookshelf" size.

Galeongirl 10-09-2008 06:10 AM

Seems like the original poster took an awful lot of time to read the whole book if he bought it the moment it came out.

Maoilbheannacht 10-09-2008 07:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImOuttaControl (Post 5521585)
No, I tried to like it...I bought it the day it came out and it's been read cover to cover...I just finally come to the conclusion that, in my opinion, it's crap.

They've lived such fascinating lives...this book is like the watered down, semi-history... For comparison, read The Beatles Anthology(the format that U2 copied for their book). The good, bad and ugly was included, and it made the read much more interesting.

As I already said, U2 at the End of the World gave much better insight into the history, psychology, and personality of the band members.

U2 At the End Of The World is the fantasy fun side of U2 and the writer put a lot of that in there. But thats a book that really just explores a few years of the bands career and is essentially one authors creative take on those years.

The books that are more real are the ones that are grounded in facts and go in correct chronological order in terms of events and experiences. I think U2 Live: A Concert Documentary and U2 By U2 are the best U2 books out there. Its true that much of the ground from 1987 onward in U2 by U2 had already been covered by multiple other books, magazine articles and TV interviews. Probably the most revealing thing in U2 By U2 was actually the early years.

Did anyone here actually know that Larry almost left the band in 1978 and that for 6 months they had another drummer sitting in for him sometimes? Although you can't tell in the film, did you know that Red Rocks was more than half empty? Did you know that when Edge returned from the War tour, that is father in Law payed for his wedding? Did you know at the time of Red Rocks, despite being semi-well known on the college rock scene, that 3 of U2's four members were still living at home with their parents? Did you know that U2 almost did not make it home to Ireland after the October tour was over and that Paul McGuinness bought the tickets with his credit card and was unable to pay the bill once he got home?

I think there are a lot of interesting and funny details that were mentioned for the first time in U2 By U2 that had never been discussed before involving the early years of the band.

Addicted To Bad 10-09-2008 09:23 AM

Another mistake ???? ...what? :ohmy:


I felt like sitting very comfortably in a room listening to them talk in a very funny and relaxing way about some interesting facts in their career... Why can´t a book be a little different from the "book rules" ??


I´m looking forward to more U2 mistakes... :D


__________________________
JUST GIVE ME WHAT I WANT
AND NOBODY´S GET HURT

65980 10-09-2008 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImOuttaControl (Post 5521575)
For a band still relevant and in the mainstream and whose story isn't yet finished, is a book like this not a little premature?

Well, but where do you draw the line? They've been together for 30 years -- probably long enough to have a retrospective. Should we wait until they're 65 to do it? What if one member leaves the group, passes away unexpectedly (such things do happen), or whatever? The Beatles' Anthology has no contemporary comments from Lennon (for obvious reasons). Imagine a U2 by U2 with no new comments from Bono... it would be pretty lame.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImOuttaControl (Post 5521575)
I bought the book right when it came out and was first excited to see the format copied from The Beatles Anthology. The only difference between the Beatles book and U2 by U2 is that the Beatles Anthology is actually interesting.

As a Beatles' expert, I may be qualified to comment on this. I agree that the Beatles' Anthology thing was probably (a) necessary, and (b) interesting (more or less), but it is also referred to by many Beatle-fans as Mythology -- that is, The Beatles are such prisoners of their own fame and legend that they themselves often cannot separate fact from popular belief, or they simply can't remember from the haze of pot smoke they were in. I think, by comparison, U2 did a very good job of remembering small details accurately... Sometimes, when they don't, their mis-remembered comments are actually more revealing than accurate ones. Nevertheless, I think U2 have clearer memories of their more recent (and less chemically influenced) history than do The Beatles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImOuttaControl (Post 5521575)
If I'm gonna nitpick, they don't even know their own history at times! I love the part where edge says that Acrobat never became a live favorite....ummm...is that because it was never played live?

I don't understand your nitpick -- if they never played "Acrobat" live, then in fact it "never became a live favorite." Where's the problem?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImOuttaControl (Post 5521575)
Another annoyance of the book is the fact that U2 seem like they have a self esteem issue about anything POP related. Rather than tell anything insightful or even interesting, most of U2's comments about this era are "it was a good idea that never really became a great song."

I think their commentary on Pop, from 9-10 years distance, is fascinating. You're quite right -- they do seem to have a self-esteem issue about it, which is itself very interesting. If you like the album more than they do, that's fine, but don't act as if you're right and they're wrong. It is their band, you know, not yours!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImOuttaControl (Post 5521575)
U2 At The End of the World was a great book, full of interesting, fun stories but mixed with the serious side of U2. I think U2 by U2 shows a pretty dry, boring version of U2.

I know where you're coming from, but there are two issues you have to keep in mind: (1) U2 are a bit dry and boring, as people -- they're not (Bono aside) the most entertaining or charismatic personalities in rock. This is revealed, to an extent, in the book, but that's just accurate to who they are. (2) The Beatles had been broken up for 25 years when they did Anthology. This means that they have free-reign to say anything, without worrying about the "beatle-machine" and its active components. Besides which, as the most analyzed pop-culture phenomenon of the 20th century, the Beatles story has been dissected into such lurid details by historians and biographers that nothing they say could possibly out-do popular products already long-since on the market. In short, they were free to say anything, U2 are not. Maybe if U2 did this book after breaking up and shutting down their activities, it would be more candid.

Agree that At the End of the World is the best book on the market, but it's also just one person's perspective, and it's completely out of date. I think U2 By U2 is a nice complement to a book like that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImOuttaControl (Post 5521575)
Interviews-- They should have included the people who've made U2 who they are, such as Willie Williams, Eno, Lanios, Flood, Lillywhite...

Think you're missing the key premise of the book: U2 by... U2 (not U2 by various producers and hangers-on). The idea is that the 4 guys alone (okay, and McGuinness) can tell their own story at last.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImOuttaControl (Post 5521575)
Anyway, time for me to shelve U2 by U2...hopefully in 10 years there will be a revised edition that includes the many "5th members" of U2.

You raise an interesting point: could the book be simply updated in the future? It's certainly possible, but I doubt it will happen. When the time comes, I think they would rather take up a totally new project rather than go back in the past to recycle an old one. There's also the problem that comments you made in 2006 might not match how you feel about things in 2018 or whatever...


By the way, did anyone else find Bono's comments in the book to be a bit off-base? For the most part he seemed to either wander off topic, or just repeat things he's said a million times. I actually skip over his comments when I pick up the book, because they aren't very interesting -- and he mostly talks about himself, as though he's trying to account for his actions of the past!

On the other hand, I thought Adam's (briefer) comments were the most revealing. I recommend reading only his comments in the book because they seem to say the most, with the fewest words!

ImOuttaControl 10-09-2008 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galeongirl (Post 5522334)
Seems like the original poster took an awful lot of time to read the whole book if he bought it the moment it came out.

Naw...I've read the book multiple times..the first time strait through and later readings were more selective.


Eh, I see I'm in the minority here which is fine. While there are parts of the book that are good, I think that overall it's not up to U2's high standards.

BTW, the title of this thread says "another mistake of the 2000's"....that doesn't mean that I think they've made mistakes with their music--I love ATYCLB and HTDAAB and the DVD's. The major mistakes come mainly from poor decisions on the two greatest hits albums and the fact that we've had only 12 album songs plus 4 non album singles released in the last 8 years since ATYCLB.

ImOuttaControl 10-09-2008 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 65980 (Post 5523252)

Think you're missing the key premise of the book: U2 by... U2 (not U2 by various producers and hangers-on). The idea is that the 4 guys alone (okay, and McGuinness) can tell their own story at last.



I disagree. U2 are self admitted in saying that they are not adequate musicians to get the material they've put out on their own.

U2 simply are not U2 without the various producers that created their sound...and without their memories, opinions and viewpoints heard, U2 by U2 is a one-sided, incomplete story in my opinion. Is there anyone in this forum that honestly believes that U2 would have had the same sound without the Eno, Lillywhite, or Lanois? Or had the same live shows without Willie Williams? They've done to the creative side what Paul McGuiness has done to the business side of U2, so they should have been included.

God, Part II 10-09-2008 04:44 PM

I'm reading the book for the first time now (huge U2 fan, but I was able to support my affection for them in other ways until the hardback went on clearance pricing) and am just finishing the ZOOROPA section. If I have any one complaint (because, otherwise, I love it) it's that (along with the liner notes for the new remastered CD releases) U2 really seems to despise most of their catalog. I mean, discussion of almost every single track seems to be summed up with a thought like, "you can tell there's a great song in there, but we just didn't quite work it out". I mean, for God's sake, Adam disses on "Where the Streets Have No Name"! "Where the Streets Have No Name"!!! The greatest rock song ever recorded! I dread getting to their comments about POP. I realize we're all our own worst critics, and probably should be, but shit, guys, give yourselves some props. There are reasons why you'll go down in history as truly one of the greatest bands in rock history...

BVS 10-09-2008 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by God, Part II (Post 5523872)
U2 really seems to despise most of their catalog. I mean, discussion of almost every single track seems to be summed up with a thought like, "you can tell there's a great song in there, but we just didn't quite work it out".

I see that as humility not despise...

Popmartijn 10-09-2008 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar (Post 5523894)
I see that as humility not despise...

Or maybe it's even something else. Maybe they couldn't get it to sound like it would sound in their head (or even in the studio while playing it). When you're dedicated to your art, you often just hear the imperfections, not the amazing end result. Even though Brian Eno was probably right (as I think he convinced Bono to keep it that way) Bono still cringes over the first two lines of Where The Streets Have No Name. He doesn't just hear the rush, he hears two lines that maybe could've been so much better.

Going off track, but still on a related note, Elvis Costello has often (and publicly) derided his album Goodbye Cruel World as his worst album ever. And yes, the production is dated on that album, but it isn't half bad. However, he once commented on what might be the deeper reason for his distaste of that album. He made it while going through a painful divorce. So when he hears that album, he gets transported back to that time. The emotions connected to that divorce, make him dislike that record (and mostly not the musicianship, lyrics or its sound).
I guess the same applies to U2. They often might not hear the songs, but what was going on in their lifes at that time.

lauramullen 10-09-2008 06:06 PM

I love that book. Not only because the fanclub picked me for the book signing, but because it tells me there story to date and they may come out with another book after they call it quits. I think that U2 realize that some of there fans are younger and don't know there story from the eighties.

BVS 10-09-2008 06:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Popmartijn (Post 5523943)
Or maybe it's even something else. Maybe they couldn't get it to sound like it would sound in their head (or even in the studio while playing it). When you're dedicated to your art, you often just hear the imperfections, not the amazing end result. Even though Brian Eno was probably right (as I think he convinced Bono to keep it that way) Bono still cringes over the first two lines of Where The Streets Have No Name. He doesn't just hear the rush, he hears two lines that maybe could've been so much better.

I agree, and that's kind of what I meant by humility, they knew it could have been much more but they just couldn't(like you said) get it to sound like what's in their heads. I think this is probably the majority of artist's thinking...

Headache in a Suitcase 10-09-2008 06:52 PM

so because you don't like it it was a mistake? that makes sense.

ImOuttaControl 10-09-2008 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase (Post 5524148)
so because you don't like it it was a mistake? that makes sense.

I think there were mistakes in how they went about the book, yes. I've already listed those reasons. Am I not entitled to that opinion? Or do I have to love everything U2 does?

financeguy 10-09-2008 07:02 PM

The book itself is pretty good, IMO.

But like Aardvark said the massive price that was charged to the fans that bought the book immediately on release leaves a very, very sour taste in the mouth

financeguy 10-09-2008 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Maoilbheannacht (Post 5522496)
Did you know at the time of Red Rocks, despite being semi-well known on the college rock scene, that 3 of U2's four members were still living at home with their parents?.

That bit is hardly news. It was mentioned in the Eamon Dunphy book (one of the few facts he got right).:lol:

ImOuttaControl 10-09-2008 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BonoVoxSupastar (Post 5524131)
I agree, and that's kind of what I meant by humility, they knew it could have been much more but they just couldn't(like you said) get it to sound like what's in their heads. I think this is probably the majority of artist's thinking...


I write/record my own music, and I usually nitpick at the end result---so I see your point.

However, how much acclaim does a band need before they get over what looks like a self esteem issue? How many awards, sold out stadiums, classic albums, hit songs and fans does a band need before they finally say...."You know...even though we think this song isn't the song we heard in our heads, our fans love it...so it's great." I'm a high school teacher and what this reminds me of is the kid who has it all, who is extrememly gifted and has the world going for them, yet this kid cannot accept a compliment and constantly gloomy about things they've done that aren't "perfect."

What one person views is humility another person can view as self-loathing.

God, Part II 10-09-2008 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImOuttaControl (Post 5524199)
What one person views is humility another person can view as self-loathing.

Exactly! Humility, self-loathing...call it what you will but, either way, it gets damn tiring...

BVS 10-09-2008 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by financeguy (Post 5524169)
The book itself is pretty good, IMO.

But like Aardvark said the massive price that was charged to the fans that bought the book immediately on release leaves a very, very sour taste in the mouth

Well being a finance person, you should know that book prices are driven by market and not the "writers"...

BVS 10-09-2008 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImOuttaControl (Post 5524199)
I write/record my own music, and I usually nitpick at the end result---so I see your point.

However, how much acclaim does a band need before they get over what looks like a self esteem issue? How many awards, sold out stadiums, classic albums, hit songs and fans does a band need before they finally say...."You know...even though we think this song isn't the song we heard in our heads, our fans love it...so it's great." I'm a high school teacher and what this reminds me of is the kid who has it all, who is extrememly gifted and has the world going for them, yet this kid cannot accept a compliment and constantly gloomy about things they've done that aren't "perfect."

What one person views is humility another person can view as self-loathing.

Well this will be a question that humanity asks until the end of time... Artist from the beginning of time have never been completely satisfied with their own works... To greet it with disdain or anger seems very odd.:huh:

No spoken words 10-09-2008 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by God, Part II (Post 5524287)
Exactly! Humility, self-loathing...call it what you will but, either way, it gets damn tiring...

You know, the thing is, nobody puts a gun to your head and makes you read this stuff.

If someone told me, I don't know, that Mick Jagger is very self-effacing and his humility can be perceived as self-loathing, well, that would be news to me...it could not get tiring for me, cos I'm not at all exposed to it. I listen to Exile on Main Street and enjoy it and that's about it......

If you're tired of U2's humility, self-loathing, self-deprecation, whatever you want to term it, then why don't you simply avoid having access to such information?

last unicorn 10-10-2008 01:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ImOuttaControl (Post 5524199)
What one person views is humility another person can view as self-loathing.

Be careful with psychological terms like this. Being critical of one's own work is a very natural, healthy and important thing for any artist. Self-loathing, as you call it, is a psychological PROBLEM. It makes me angry if people carelessly throw around terms like these. U2 being critical of their work has nothing to do with "self loathing". I would be more worried if they found everything they've ever done perfect.

blueeyedgirl 10-10-2008 07:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by financeguy (Post 5524173)
That bit is hardly news. It was mentioned in the Eamon Dunphy book (one of the few facts he got right).:lol:

Ah the Eamon Dunphy book, what a great bit of fiction. :D

I tend to agree with the view of the U2 by U2 being a great work of revisionism. I suppose it would be difficult for the members of U2 not to review their history with a great dollop of revisionism, but it does get a tad tiring. For my money, the best U2 books are the Hot Press compilations, and the Bill Graham book (who should have written their bio, not effin Dunphy).

God, Part II 10-10-2008 07:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No spoken words (Post 5524592)
If you're tired of U2's humility, self-loathing, self-deprecation, whatever you want to term it, then why don't you simply avoid having access to such information?

Ah, great advice. If I don't like the truth of something, avoid it and create my own fiction to feel better about things. Religious man, are ya?

God, Part II 10-10-2008 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by last unicorn (Post 5524854)
Be careful with psychological terms like this. Being critical of one's own work is a very natural, healthy and important thing for any artist. Self-loathing, as you call it, is a psychological PROBLEM. It makes me angry if people carelessly throw around terms like these. U2 being critical of their work has nothing to do with "self loathing". I would be more worried if they found everything they've ever done perfect.

Suppose rather than "carelessly throwing around terms", some of us are legitimately of the opinion that U2 (rather irritatingly) straddles a real line between legitimate self-criticism and unwarranted self-loathing? What, just because it's U2, they can't have actual psychological problems? Hell, Bono has said many times that he needs a crowd of thousands cheering him nightly to feel normal; I'd say it's a given that they (that just about any public artist) have some level of psychological problems.

last unicorn 10-10-2008 09:29 AM

Yes, like any other human being.

Still I don't think "self-loathing" is part of that, it's a very strong term.

I am an artist myself and very critical of my work, I think that's a healthy and important attitude and has nothing to do with hating who you are. Of couse, sometimes it can be this way, but I don't see this with ANY member of U2.

And Bono is often being cheeky with comments.

No spoken words 10-10-2008 10:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by God, Part II (Post 5525225)
Ah, great advice. If I don't like the truth of something, avoid it and create my own fiction to feel better about things. Religious man, are ya?

Oh! My apologies!!! I did not realize that you could synthesize the words of others into factual interpretations of their intent. My apologies, by all means, continue to read Bono's quotes then complain.....

On a serious note, how you could have read what I said then came up with this reply boggles the mind....but, then again, this area of the site is not exactly teeming with brain surgeons, now is it?

Carry on, kids.

God, Part II 10-10-2008 11:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by No spoken words (Post 5525631)
Oh! My apologies!!! I did not realize that you could synthesize the words of others into factual interpretations of their intent. My apologies, by all means, continue to read Bono's quotes then complain.....

On a serious note, how you could have read what I said then came up with this reply boggles the mind....but, then again, this area of the site is not exactly teeming with brain surgeons, now is it?

Carry on, kids.

You, in effect, said if I'm irritated by the truth of something, I should avoid it. Tell me how that interpretation is wrong, and while you're at it, tell me how that could be healthy.

No spoken words 10-10-2008 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by God, Part II (Post 5525799)
You, in effect, said if I'm irritated by the truth of something, I should avoid it. Tell me how that interpretation is wrong, and while you're at it, tell me how that could be healthy.

You're missing the point. There's no "truth" here. Your interpretation of someone's words is not a fact, sorry. Also, we're not talking about some grand idea that you would be turning a blind eye/deaf ear to. You stated that listening to Bono/the band speak in less than glowing terms about their music was getting annoying. Are the words of the band that important to you that you must listen to every word, even if they serve to annoy you? Howard Stern annoys me, so, guess what? I don't listen to his show. Does that mean that I won't listen to John McCain during a debate, even though he and I have different political belief systems? No, it's important to me that I listen to him, it's not that important to listen to Bono babble.

Let's not take a micro view of an issue and blow it up and pretend that I'm espousing such a course of action for all things.....there are shades of grey in life.

Bonochick 10-10-2008 12:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Galeongirl (Post 5522334)
Seems like the original poster took an awful lot of time to read the whole book if he bought it the moment it came out.

I bought mine not long after it had been out and still haven't finished it. :reject:

Quote:

Originally Posted by No spoken words (Post 5525631)
On a serious note, how you could have read what I said then came up with this reply boggles the mind....but, then again, this area of the site is not exactly teeming with brain surgeons, now is it?

You're posting here too, you know.

If you guys want to debate things and have different opinions, fine, but there is no need to start resulting to insulting words.

No spoken words 10-10-2008 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bonochick (Post 5525910)



You're posting here too, you know.

Yes, yes I am. Nice place to visit, wouldn't want to live here.

Also, it's ok to not be a brain surgeon.....some people merely practice internal medicine, etc.

God, Part II 10-10-2008 08:57 PM

No spoken words, I feel stupider for having participated in this conversation, but I'm compelled to make one final clarification: I said "If I have any one complaint (because, otherwise, I love it) it's that (along with the liner notes for the new remastered CD releases) U2 really seems to despise most of their catalog". See how that works? Drop the whole enjoyable and insightful book because of one irritating through-line? I don't think so. Chill...

The Sad Punk 10-12-2008 08:05 PM

Anyway, I think Adam should write a book.

No spoken words 10-12-2008 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by God, Part II (Post 5526835)
No spoken words, I feel stupider for having participated in this conversation, but I'm compelled to make one final clarification: I said "If I have any one complaint (because, otherwise, I love it) it's that (along with the liner notes for the new remastered CD releases) U2 really seems to despise most of their catalog". See how that works? Drop the whole enjoyable and insightful book because of one irritating through-line? I don't think so. Chill...

Thank you for reminding me why I rarely, if ever, visit this neck of the woods.

coolian2 10-13-2008 03:58 AM

He's taken his angry pills.

Edge_Orchestra 10-13-2008 05:42 PM

I've come to the conclusion that I respectfully disagree with "ImOuttaControl"s view on "U2 By U2".

Best U2 books? There are three that are fantastic.
  1. At The End Of The World by Bill Flanagan. (Great snapshot of the AB sessions through to the end of the Zoo tours)
  2. U2 & i - by Anton Corbijn. (Thier the best photos by thier best photographer)
  3. U2 by U2: Great insight and stories by the band, management and friends close to the band, regardless of "ImOuttaControl"s view.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:05 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com