Are you under the impression that U2 is obsessed with the idea

[Bono's shades]

I'm gonna have to say what I said in the other thread...which is Bono has got to such a level of influence over the African situation now, that he has to maintain his fame - because it is this fame - or as he puts it, "currency" - which he is trying to "spend" in order to save lives in Africa. Only Blockbuster albums will give him this currency. There are too many lives at stake for U2 to put out an "unsafe" album right now. I truly believe this is a huge factor as to why they're on their current path. Because it certainly isn't for the money. And I must say, I can't disagree with them.

That's a good point. But it also makes me wonder - what would happen if U2 were to do another Passengers album as a kind of coda to the current album/tour? Wouldn't recording under a different name with one or two additional musicians on board like Eno (or maybe they could have someone new sit in this time) take some of the pressure off them by allowing them to be totally creative and not worry about whether the album is a commercial smash or not? Wasn't that the whole idea behind the first Passengers album?

 

[If you shout...]

That's a good point. But it also makes me wonder - what would happen if U2 were to do another Passengers album as a kind of coda to the current album/tour? Wouldn't recording under a different name with one or two additional musicians on board like Eno (or maybe they could have someone new sit in this time) take some of the pressure off them by allowing them to be totally creative and not worry about whether the album is a commercial smash or not? Wasn't that the whole idea behind the first Passengers album?

That, my friend, is a fucking outstanding point...!

 

[Michael Griffiths]

I concur! Although, the only thing that would limit them is time constraints...

 

[VertiGone]

If U2 were still in their thirties they would make a more adventurous album, i am sure of it. Their age is what's working against them. They feel that the public persona is that they're old and already behind the eight ball as it is (ie more difficult getting their music played on the radio, or videos shown on tv). Add to that the poor sales of Pop and the result are these "safer" albums. However, HTDAAB is amazing, even if it is a more "safe" album. With every album now potentially their last, they dont' want to retire on the heels of a poor selling album.

 

[U2_Guy]

Add to that the poor sales of Pop and the result are these "safer" albums. With every album now potentially their last, they dont' want to retire on the heels of a poor selling album.

Pop had poor sales (but then again not really poor) in the United States. It was a smash hit all over the world.

 

[VertiGone]

Pop had poor sales (but then again not really poor) in the United States. It was a smash hit all over the world.

Speaking in U2 terms, poor sales in America = poor sales. It probably wouldn't have even sold over a million in the states if it didnt' have such a big opening week. If it had been a hit in the U.S., which it definitely wasn't, they wouldn't have redone half the songs, and probably wouldn't have released ATYCLB in the form that it came out.

 

[U2_Guy]

Speaking in U2 terms, poor sales in America = poor sales. It probably wouldn't have even sold over a million in the states if it didnt' have such a big opening week. If it had been a hit in the U.S., which it definitely wasn't, they wouldn't have redone half the songs, and probably wouldn't have released ATYCLB in the form that it came out.

I completely agree with you. 101%.

And that is my main critic: U2 changed from an adventurous band to a safe band because of Pop failing to succeed in the States.

IMO, ATYCLB is U2's worst record. And they done it mostly to please the USA. HTDAAB is tons better than ATYCLB but it is very much still directioned to the average american public. That means not experimenting new ideas, not pushing it forward, not trying to find new sounds.

 

[U2girl]

I'm gonna have to say what I said in the other thread...which is Bono has got to such a level of influence over the African situation now, that he has to maintain his fame - because it is this fame - or as he puts it, "currency" - which he is trying to "spend" in order to save lives in Africa. Only Blockbuster albums will give him this currency. There are too many lives at stake for U2 to put out an "unsafe" album right now. I truly believe this is a huge factor as to why they're on their current path. Because it certainly isn't for the money. And I must say, I can't disagree with them.

And I will again say what I said in another thread: no. U2's success doesn't have anything to do with Bono's Africa work.

Jeffrey Sachs and Paul O Neil (to name only two) were both impressed with his knowledge and understanding of the problems - THAT's his currency and THAT is what is going to help win over politicians. That he actually knows what he's talking about, he's educated himself on the issues.
I would say that those politicians do not know who or what U2 even is, and if they do, I doubt it influenced their decision of listening to Bono or not.

I find it odd that so many are ready to jump on the "safe" and "calculated" bandwagon. For years, we have known U2 works in trilogies and ATYCLB would have been less electronic either way. I don't know what HTDAAB sounds yet, but maybe its follow up will be more rocking.

 

[Shaizari]

ATYCLB was far from safe, I was one of those AB, ZOOROPA, POP generation fans. I was shocked when ATYCLB came out, and for while seemed stunned by the daring departure to simplicity and pl;ain speaking (as their friends Wim Wenders and Salman Rushide were discussing before ATYCLB was released). After the masked adventures of our heroes, it was time for them to take the mask off and it revealed their soul(the goal is soul).
ATYCLB left behind the formulas of pop irony and embraced honesty, Bono had learnt to tell the truth after learning to lie. If anything HTDAAB is a progression of ATYCLB, from transcendantal pop down to down to earth ethical rock.

 

[believer75]

ATYCLB was far from safe, I was one of those AB, ZOOROPA, POP generation fans. I was shocked when ATYCLB came out, and for while seemed stunned by the daring departure to simplicity and pl;ain speaking (as their friends Wim Wenders and Salman Rushide were discussing before ATYCLB was released). After the masked adventures of our heroes, it was time for them to take the mask off and it revealed their soul(the goal is soul).
ATYCLB left behind the formulas of pop irony and embraced honesty, Bono had learnt to tell the truth after learning to lie. If anything HTDAAB is a progression of ATYCLB, from transcendantal pop down to down to earth ethical rock.

Yeah, that's it!!! Agreed.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

And I will again say what I said in another thread: no. U2's success doesn't have anything to do with Bono's Africa work.

Jeffrey Sachs and Paul O Neil (to name only two) were both impressed with his knowledge and understanding of the problems - THAT's his currency and THAT is what is going to help win over politicians. That he actually knows what he's talking about, he's educated himself on the issues.
I would say that those politicians do not know who or what U2 even is, and if they do, I doubt it influenced their decision of listening to Bono or not.

I find it odd that so many are ready to jump on the "safe" and "calculated" bandwagon. For years, we have known U2 works in trilogies and ATYCLB would have been less electronic either way. I don't know what HTDAAB sounds yet, but maybe its follow up will be more rocking.

Did you not read my reply to you in that other thread, U2Girl? My reply was basically that it's not Jeffrey Sachs or Paul O Neil who give him the currency. The Jeffrey Sachs's and Paul O Neils of the world are the people who Bono is spending his currency on. The people who give Bono his currency (his fame) are the masses. And the masses will not give it to him unless he delivers in a massive way - ie, blockbuster albums. That's just the way it works. It's neither right nor wrong. It's simply cause and effect.

Look, there are plenty of qualified people in the world who know just as much as Bono does on the issue, so why aren't politicians listening to them? It's because they don't have the currency (fame) that Bono has to spend on them....the very currency that only the masses can offer - not the politicians.

 

[boosterjuice]

U2 is a cyclical band. Once the success of HTDAAB is solidified, U2 will be in a position for more experimention. ATYCLB wasn't that great and U2 knows it. U2 had to get a successful album out of their system, that being HTDAAB.

I predict that the next U2 album will focus on experimentation and be more artistically relevant.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

Oh where to start....

- If there was just one point in U2's career that I could go back to and slap them around a little, it was the point where they decided that US sales were the be all and end all. Pop was a huge success everywhere in the world - except the US. Popmart was a huge success everywhere in the world - except the US. The band were obviously scared shitless by not being accepted by the US and then went about making an album aimed purely at being succesful in the US market, ie bland and dead easy to digest. They hyped that album as a soul album, Bono crapping on about just wanting to be a soul singer, all the "Goal is soul" talk, and THAT was exactly what that album lacked - soul. It was U2 done to a formula. Popmart took in North America, Europe, Israel, Australia, Central America, Japan, South America, South Africa (left any out?). The Elevation tour was only two extensive trips around the US, one victory lap around Europe and that's it. I think it's plainly obvious that that was all about winning back the US. It also was their least inspired album ever.

- I think HTDAAB is a fantastic album. Really, truly brilliant. Light years ahead of ATYCLB. Still not close to the same realm as Achtung Baby or The Joshua Tree, but it can rightfully sit at the same table as, say UF or Pop. U2 are a band in their 40's, living very, very different lives to the band that recorded the Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby. Their lives are different and therefore their influences are different. I'm fine with this. HTDAAB sounds like a natural progression brought on by those changes in their lives, while the only song on ATYCLB that sounds natural is In A Little While, the rest sound so forced. I'm very, very happy with the current album and I think fans have to accept the bands age and position in life and accept that another huge, groundbreaking, masterpiece album is most likely not going to happen again. I mean, if they were to pull it off, the Beatles position in the world will be looking decidedly shaky.

- I agree that U2/Bono's fame and positioning in the world is absolutely key to Bono's Africa campaign.

- I think U2 doing something again under another name is a fantastic idea. Wouldn't it be great to see a couple of their contemporaries roped in? Michael Stipe and Bono on the same track.... mmmmmmm....

 

[U2girl]

Did you not read my reply to you in that other thread, U2Girl? My reply was basically that it's not Jeffrey Sachs or Paul O Neil who give him the currency. The Jeffrey Sachs's and Paul O Neils of the world are the people who Bono is spending his currency on. The people who give Bono his currency (his fame) are the masses. And the masses will not give it to him unless he delivers in a massive way - ie, blockbuster albums. That's just the way it works. It's neither right nor wrong. It's simply cause and effect.

Look, there are plenty of qualified people in the world who know just as much as Bono does on the issue, so why aren't politicians listening to them? It's because they don't have the currency (fame) that Bono has to spend on them....the very currency that only the masses can offer - not the politicians.

I would say it's the other way around. He is spending the "activist" currency on the U2 fans. Remember how some fans say he should focus more on his day job? Remember the flak he took for shaking hands with conservative politicians? The delay of U2's albums because of his activities?

Do you think Sachs's and O Neil's of the world really know or care who U2 is and that they listened to him just because he's the singer in a very popular band? I don't.
Of course, there are many qualified people in the world, but none of them can get the exposure Bono can. (do they have access to Blair, Bush, Pope, Schroeder?) That said, Bono is just a face to help promote DATA and similar organizations - it doesn't demean the work of people in the field.

U2 has a huge fanbase who stands by them no matter what - as proven by the subpar POP - and U2 knew it was subpar, uninspired and unfinished. They could have stopped right after ATYCLB and that wouldn't change their legendary status.

(people who claim U2 "knew" ATYCLB wasn't that great should read or remember the band's comments about it)

 

[doctorwho]

If you're going to make this argument, then you should start with JT. IMO, JT is arguably U2's most over-produced album and it was very calculated. It was the album designed for greater success. How? Because songs like "With or Without You" always race to the top of the charts.

The saving grace for JT is the fact that it sounded like nothing else out there at the time. The other big albums in '87 were from Bon Jovi and Michael Jackson. "I Still Haven't Found..." hardly sounds like "Bad" or "Living on a Prayer".

People say how "risky" U2 was with AB. But is this really true? AB contains "One", another slow love song that raced its way up the charts. It also contained what may be U2's catchiest song in "Mysterious Ways". That song was about as "pop" as you can get. The big changes on AB was not the music as much as how Bono sang (more spoken songs and far, far less Bono wailing) and the image change. After all, the JT era U2 made hard songs like "Bullet the Blue Sky" and "Exit" - equivalent to "The Fly" and "Until the End of the World".

HTDAAB may not be U2's best. Then again, I don't think any one album contains an artist's best - I believe an artist's best is shown in glimpses over the years. Each U2 album has a bit of "perfection" on it. This album is no different.

As for trying to stay relevant - you make that sound like a bad thing. What artist doesn't want to stay relevant? No one wants to be tossed aside as an "80's band" or "big in the 90's" or worse.

With HTDAAB, U2 may not have broken "new musical ground" - but then, do they have to? Does any artist do this any more? Josh Grobin? Eminem? No Doubt? R.E.M.? These days, I hear more artists sampling more than ever, laying some new vocals over older tracks and loops.

U2 may not be "reinventing rock" with these last two albums, but at least they still sound fresh and exciting. Maybe they do try a bit too hard, but then, can you blame them? They are in their 40's and MTV, VH-1 and Clear Channel all would love to push U2 aside. But they can't. Despite their efforts, U2 still sell tons of albums and have hit songs. So U2 have to make a few songs more mainstream. Is that so horrible that their music is accessible? If so, then you should have wrote this in '87, when U2 made their most accessible album.

 

[Michael Griffiths]

I would say it's the other way around. He is spending the "activist" currency on the U2 fans. Remember how some fans say he should focus more on his day job? Remember the flak he took for shaking hands with conservative politicians? The delay of U2's albums because of his activities?

I disagree with those fans. Without his experiences as an activist, we wouldn't get the same music - ie, 'Mirracle Drug', 'Crumbs for Your Table', etc, etc. So in a way, he is spending his "activist" currency on his fans....but in a good way: by delivering a great album.

Do you think Sachs's and O Neil's of the world really know or care who U2 is and that they listened to him just because he's the singer in a very popular band? I don't.
Of course, there are many qualified people in the world, but none of them can get the exposure Bono can. (do they have access to Blair, Bush, Pope, Schroeder?) That said, Bono is just a face to help promote DATA and similar organizations - it doesn't demean the work of people in the field.

Yes, I do happen to think the Sach's and O Neil's of the world know or care who U2 is. Paul Martin (Canada's prime minister) is big U2 fan, as is Tony Blair (Britain's PM). But that's beside the point anyway. The point is these people would not listen to him unless he was famous to the masses. It's the fame that gets him in the door, whether or not these leaders know who is or not. It's the "door man", so to speak, who knows who he is. As you just stated yourself, a normal qualified person cannot get the same exposure or access that Bono can.

U2 has a huge fanbase who stands by them no matter what - as proven by the subpar POP - and U2 knew it was subpar, uninspired and unfinished. They could have stopped right after ATYCLB and that wouldn't change their legendary status.

(people who claim U2 "knew" ATYCLB wasn't that great should read or remember the band's comments about it)

Here you should take your own advice and read the band's comments which they made at the time of Pop. You'll notice they said pretty much the same things about it as they said about ATYCLB. They called Pop their best work to date. They certainly didn't mention anything about it being uninspired or unfinished. Only recently, after the release of ATYCLB, had they tried to distance themselves from the conception of Pop, and tried to downplay the album by saying it was "rushed", etc. But despite this, they still say they're very proud of the album. It's the media and the fans, more than anything, who have run with the idea that Pop wasn't a good record, not U2.

 

[U2girl]

Yes, I do happen to think the Sach's and O Neil's of the world know or care who U2 is. Paul Martin (Canada's prime minister) is big U2 fan, as is Tony Blair (Britain's PM). But that's beside the point anyway. The point is these people would not listen to him unless he was famous to the masses. It's the fame that gets him in the door, whether or not these leaders know who is or not. It's the "door man", so to speak, who knows who he is. As you just stated yourself, a normal qualified person cannot get the same exposure or access that Bono can.


Here you should take your own advice and read the band's comments which they made at the time of Pop. You'll notice they said pretty much the same things about it as they said about ATYCLB. They called Pop their best work to date. They certainly didn't mention anything about it being uninspired or unfinished. Only recently, after the release of ATYCLB, had they tried to distance themselves from the conception of Pop, and tried to downplay the album by saying it was "rushed", etc. But despite this, they still say they're very proud of the album. It's the media and the fans, more than anything, who have run with the idea that Pop wasn't a good record, not U2.

Of course fame gets him in the doors, but it's his knowledge on the issues that has persuaded world leaders and economists to listen to him. (ONeill and Sachs were not impressed by his fame but his research and it wouldn't be fair IMO to say that Blair and Martin were persuaded because they happen to like U2)

Can't do because I wasn't a fan back then. I'm sure they're obviously proud of any album they do - however I disagree with the idea that, upon the success of ATYCLB, they "betrayed" Pop.

Did they not release single versions of several songs on that album, and added 3 new mixes on the Best of? (even a new mix of Playboy mansion was thought about when they were thinking about Hands that built America single) Did they not finish the album when they should have been rehearsing for the tour, which resulted in opening night debacle?

 

[Michael Griffiths]

Of course fame gets him in the doors, but it's his knowledge on the issues that has persuaded world leaders and economists to listen to him. (ONeill and Sachs were not impressed by his fame but his research!)

Can't do because I wasn't a fan back then. I'm sure they're obviously proud of any album they do - however I disagree with the idea that, upon the success of ATYCLB, they "betrayed" Pop.

Did they not release single versions of several songs on that album, and added 3 new mixes on the Best of? (even a new mix of Playboy mansion was thought about when they were thinking about Hands that built America single) Did they not finish the album when they should have been rehearsing for the tour, which resulted in opening night debacle?

I agree with you that it's his knowledge on the issues that has done the persuading, not the fame, but that's got nothing to do with the fact that it was his fame that got him in the door. Like I said, he wouldn't have even had the opportunity to speak with O Neil and Sachs unless he were let into the room with them. Bono has said himself, his fame is like currency, and he intends to spend his wisely. I didn't make this up. This is what Bono says.

As for U2 re-recording songs from Pop for the Best Of, that's part of the distancing from the conception people have of Pop. Edge may have felt the mixes weren't quite right, but he feels that about every song from every album practically. In this case, it provided an opportunity for U2 to repackage the songs which they happened to think were great, so that the masses could get to hear them in a way they'd more easily digest. I personally feel the original mixes from the album are far superior than some of the re-recordings/remixes. The vocals on the first version of 'Gone' are far superior, and the sound is more clean. The same can be said for 'Staring at the Sun'. As for the album as a whole, I appreciate the "dirtiness", the rawness, found on the album. The re-recordings take some of that spontaneity out of the songs; they water them down in some ways. Of course, that's just my opinion.

 

[U2_Guy]

"But depth is not what this album is after. It's a statement of competitiveness and relevance, and the best example of intelligent pop hitmaking this year.

Having gone through the agony of making hits, U2 wants to make sure its songs will be heard."

Time article...

 

[Sleep Over Jack]

Didn't Clayton say in a new article that he thought ATYCLB was "overpraised"


"neither Clayton nor Mullen Jr. could shake the feeling that the record had been overpraised by a public relieved to see aging rockers not thoroughly embarrassing themselves"

-Time article

 

[U2_Guy]

Didn't Clayton say in a new article that he thought ATYCLB was "overpraised"

"But neither Clayton nor Mullen Jr. could shake the feeling that the record had been overpraised by a public relieved to see aging rockers not thoroughly embarrassing themselves. "On the last album there was lots of good feeling," says Clayton, "but only 'Beautiful Day' was a hit. I felt that, if our goal is still to be the biggest band in the world, the new record had to have three or four songs that would bring in new people. Three or four hits."

Sounds like they have to have BIG hits... BIG radio/MTV tunes at any price... And that's a bad think artistically speaking.

Please U2 don't turn into Bon Jovi/Aerosmith... Please...

U2 was always about art success first, not commercial success first...

 

[U2girl]

Intentional or not, U2 has had huge commercial success since 87. The first three songs from JT are (apart from maybe One, and more recently Beautiful day) most radio played songs and were doing very well in the charts. Does that make them any less good?

I'd like to see the context in which Adam and Larry said that. I think ATYCLB was praised because it happened to be a good album. (as that achtung covers site would tell you with its posted ATYCLB reviews) One hit is all it's really necessary to bring new fans, as proven by Beautiful day. (btw, Stuck got to 35 on the Billboard chart, which is good for 40 year olds IMO)