Bono: 'U2 album was too challenging'

[ozeeko]

as it's been said many times on this thread: GOYB was a horrible choice for a lead single. It was too similar to Vertigo, both songs have descending glam riffs and verses where Bono speaksings one or two notes. Now, I like GOYB better than Vertigo, but it's true that Vertigo was a better radio song mainly due to its loud dumb rock chorus, whereas GOYB's chorus was a lot more subtle and dissonant. But when you're talking radio today, you can bet on a Vertigo chorus getting across much better.

That being said, GOYB probably reminded listeners too much of Vertigo, they probably thought, "this sounds like something i've heard b4" without noticing the subtle differences. But in the end, it was not different enough. Too much like Vertigo, and at the end of the day, not even that great to begin with. U2 trying to appear campy, edgy and trashy went over a lot better when they were in their early to late 30's than at 50. It probably just seemed silly and, excuse me, a tad pathetic for most listeners. Throw in the extremely earnest sounding ATYCLB and BOMB and it threw people off. "U2 is trying to sound cool now after writing such sober and "sincere" music the past 2 albums?" Vertigo was silly, yes, but it was that squeaky clean fun in the summertime kind of silliness that fit in with their image round that time. GOYB is U2 trying something a bit dirtier and darker, but without going all the way, which creates a problem because it reminds people too much of what came before. The fact that GOYB is too similar to Vertigo is what kills it, and also the fact that it's nothing spectacular anyway.

If U2 desired that huge lead off single, they would've put all their efforts into making Magnificent a smash hit. I think the one thing that prevents it from totally leaping into the stratosphere is Bono's vocals. Bono should've been singing full out on the choruses, loud and proud, with reverb and echo, the words "ONLY LOVE" shouting to the Heavens and drowning out everything that surrounds the listener at that moment. The version we were given is a really good performance but not stellar. When i heard the beach clip i thought to myself how huge this song was going to be. I imagined it being a soaring holy epic of a song that pounds instead of flows. The version we have is good and soothing and subtle (which i am all for usually) but IMO Magnificent needed to be bigger. I'm not saying the arrangement needed the kitchen sink (if anything it needed to be stripped back). Using the core instruments, bass, guitar, drums, a little light ambience provided from Eno, and finally Bono's loud and proud vocals, that song could've been huge. And promoting the hell out of it would've worked as well.

 

[allbecauseofu2]

artists change their mind all the time about music. Pop stinks, NLOTH stinks etc. i don;t let things disrupt my enjoyment of the music , and that includes the artist themselves. But honestly a great example of this is RHCP. More specifically the guitar player. john fraunstane. (I know thats not how its spelled.) basically, this guy hates the fans. Doesn't believe in autographs. Actually said once he really doesn't even care for funk music., Never seems to care about the fans in attendance. Proly thinks no one should be dancing to their music. Really just comes off like he just can't be bothered. Fine. Still love the band. love his solo work. And i won;t allow him to get in the way of me listening to his music.

 

[blueeyedgirl]

And Neil Young isn't afraid to fail. You meet him on his terms.

Doesn't mean everything was gold. A lot of it wasn't. But what is gold is ravishing. But as far as I can see, he considers himself a working musician first, which means he is putting himself out there all the time in the recording studio, on the road. You see what he is working on all the time--good or bad (and some of it is atrocious)--use it as you will.

But he's made his career on that (and that transcendent guitar). He doesn't create expectations. He demolishes them. He disappoints, sure, but you always knew that was part of the price.

I was going to add Springsteen here too. Bruce can do the whole "big" concert with the E Street Band if he wants to, but he can do quiet, intimate theatre if he also wants to.

It's obvious that U2 are at a stage of their career where they could use Bruce or Neil as examples, but obviously, like any other addicts, they're addicted to being "BIG", having mega tours, with mega stages yada yada.

 

[Peterrrrr]

I realy hope that they dont destroy the SOA album and make it more mainstream.

 

[Muldfeld]

Indeed. It's a deeply troubling article, as it indicates U2 are mainly interested in popularity for its own sake.

Exactly. U2 could do some really cool stuff. The newest album and "Kingdom for Your Love" are an indication of that, but the band must push further. And U2 is lying or is delusional when saying that "Get On Your Boots" was too edgy.

Mofo was perhaps too edgy for the mainstream. The Fly was.

Get On Your Boots just sucked, though it was better than Vertigo, it was too similar.

I think U2 is between its old fan base that appreciated complexity and the newer fan base its grown with its last 2 albums and radio play of its past singles. Such people of the latter category love older U2 due to brainwashing. They'd never have given The Fly a chance and probably still don't.

U2 HAS to be stronger than this. I fear a retrenchment. The ego for popularity has too long overtaken the gutsiness for artistry in this band. The Edge hasn't shaken up his guitar sound in ages; his work is the most conservative on the new record. Shame on him.

If you read the Rolling Stone article, it's pretty clear that U2 are going to make "Songs of Ascent" poppier than it might have been. Bono is talking about recapturing the hits charts. Very worrying. We all know that there are good hits (U2's '80s and early '90s stuff) and bad hits (most of their post-1998 work), and the charts largely foster bad hits. When is the last time a hit on the charts was mindblowingly good and not just Outkast "Hey Ya" pretty good. I can't even remember. But it has been forever.

I think the economy may be a big reason and illegal downloading has become that much easier. HTDAAB's success on the charts and at the Grammys wasn't a sign that U2 was on the right track, though. People with taste know it was precisely the opposite.

Maybe, but someone who owns two U2 albums is not a U2 'fan', they're just someone that owns a few U2 albums. No-one would claim to be a Bowie fan on the basis of owning two of his 1980s albums.

Well said. There's too much of a focus on that hipster contingent, who haven't even TRIED to get into the older albums. For them, it's all about immediacy, and U2 music was always better than that in the '80s and '90s. It's very sad that U2 think a back to basics album is what they created in 2000 and 2004. It was largely dumbed down stuff. There's nothing inherently wrong with Joshua Tree 2 if U2 had actually done that. The problem was they copied certain melodies from the past and eliminated a lot of the texture found in Joshua Tree.

The tragedy of ATYCLB and HTDAAB is that U2 deluded themselves into thinking that they were fulfilling their mission of old -- improving the mainstream by infusing it with innovative, great, future classics -- rather than turning against it by selling out. It is crucial that U2 understands this if it is to forge ahead toward making better music.

I don't know what U2 is reading, but, based on what I've read in this thread alone, all the band has to do to get some sober opinions is read what we think. Some really smart fans here.

 

[ZOOTVTOURist]

The frontman added that the record might have been too complex for fans.
"I suppose we've made a work that is a bit challenging for people who have grown up on a diet of popstars," he said.

This only shows, how far away Bono obviously is from his own work and his fans these days. He says, in other words, that the fans might be too stupid to get such a 'complex' album. Embarassing, more so because this album is by far not 'complex' – with for the most part simple messages and simüple sing-along melodies. Far away from the impressionistic, poetic approach of TUF, TJT or even AB. Far away from the edges, that other great albums like ZOOROPA and POP present ...
And even worse: It is all about mass success, popularity in his head and wallet; the art aspect has been lost completely. And the ability to criticize themselves: "Oh, it is the fans' fault, they did not 'get' it" Well, what about the fact that the quality of the album and the disastrous singles-'strategy' is lacking a lot, folks? Might anybody please wake U2 up, before they enter the studio again? I am so disappointed!

 

[ZOOTVTOURist]

...Really, how times have changed.

 

[mama cass]

Magnificent on the other hand is a real triumph and should have been the song to launch the whole campaign.

 

[mama cass]

plus, bit of a patronising article eh?

bit shabby trying to blame the audience tsk tsk

 

[BGD75]

I am not sure how I feel about Bono's comments. As much as I understand where he is coming from (to every artist sales are important), I fear that this could mean the change of direction for the future release.
I guess the band feels kind of stuck: on one hand you have hard core fans who get this album and appreciate it for what it is (read: great album), but on the other side you have casual fans (and there are unfortunately, lot more of them). The sales are def. driven a lot by these casual fans, and IMO the last album is not an album that would appeal to radio audience or casual fans. Not that I have a problem with it. I honestly don't care what my neighbour, who only owns U2's greatest Hits CD, may think about NLOTH. So yes, I do fear that U2 may go the other way, way which pleases the radio audiences.... They need to realize that the die hard base loves the path they are currently on (ok, most of the hard core base...there are few around here that don't share the feeling). Having said that, everyone who has heard Kingdom would def. say that it is not chartbreaker/radio friendly type of tune, and if this is a preview of what's to come on SoA, then i am all for it. I just hope the band's need to be on radio's top 20 doesn't all of a sudden cause a complete change direction in which the next album is going.

 

[BGD75]

....I say we start a petition demanding they stick to the real sound... and not worry about pop music. Screw radio!!

 

[last unicorn]

You all know how the media loves to take things out of context, and it's tabloid media we're talking about here.They're trying to manipulate that interview to make it soundl ike the band is blaming the fans. It's always amazing to see how quickly the fans are prepared to jump on the band.

U2 have talked about these things in other interviews before but people weren't complaining. They simply state the facts: NLOTH wasn't a big success commercially and they didn't have hit singles. So what? It's the truth. And of course it has to do with the musical taste of today's audience. And I don't think they'll change the direction of SOA or whatever album they have coming up because of it. U2 are not stupid, they know very well that the music they're currently making isn't radiofriendly mainstream. They knew that about NLOTH as well, otherwise they'd be very naive. Yes, maybe they could have chosen another lead single, but I don't think it would have changed things much.

 

[last unicorn]

I am so disappointed!

Really? Since you have shown nothing but negativity towards the band here on this board, I'm actually surprised that there is still something left to disappoint you. Btw, your comparison is bad. NLOTH is much better than Zooropa, which is by far the worst U2 album,and Pop, which could have been great.

 

[mama cass]

At least Bono admits NLOTH was a fail...not an epic fail...but a fail none the less

i love this album and would not call it a failure... 2 or 3 of the songs were total and utter love at first listening for me, a couple of others were growers, and even some of the ones i wasn't so keen on have won me over since hearing them live...

i think it's really shabby the idea of success simply being based on $$$$$$

 

[last unicorn]

i think it's really shabby the idea of success simply being based on $$$$$$

Well, if we're realistic, success means commercial success. I'm sure NLOTH is a personal success for the band, because it's the album they wanted to make and they believe in the songs and still play many of them live. On the other hand, numbers don't lie.

I don't understand the whole fuzz anyway. With a tour like this going on, I don't see how they can not be successful. U2 have always been more of a live than an album band.

And fans will always be disappointed, if they do make a commercially successful album and if they don't. They worry too much about themselves being embarrassed if U2 don't sell more records or don't have a hit song on the radio. Like friends coming up and saying: Well you're band hasn't done quite well recently, right? Laughable. The only thing that counts for me is if I like the music or not. But the band cannot win anyway.

 

[mama cass]

Btw, your comparison is bad. NLOTH is much better than Zooropa, which is by far the worst U2 album,and Pop, which could have been great.

that's just your opinion LU

Zooropa is one of U2's greatest in my opinion... it's up there in my top 4 (along with Pop)...

 

[last unicorn]

That's true, but then HIS statement is also only based on an opinion and he states it as fact. OK, in my opinion, Zooropa is their worst album. I cannot even get myself to pull it out and play it. Pop is a good album in parts, there are songs I absolutely love on that one. But NLOTH is an album I keep coming back to at the moment, along with Unforgettable Fire. These two are my favourite U2 albums.

 

[schnumi]

The album isnt too challenging to real U2 fans, just to the casual pop radio listeners it is.

And thank god for that, now create another POP, Achtung Baby album and stop being afraid of what the radio listeners say about it.

U2 has been around for so long they should do what they enjoy now and stop tweaking songs around just to get into the pop scene. It only makes songs worse.

 

[BGD75]

And fans will always be disappointed, if they do make a commercially successful album and if they don't. They worry too much about themselves being embarrassed if U2 don't sell more records or don't have a hit song on the radio. Like friends coming up and saying: Well you're band hasn't done quite well recently, right? Laughable. The only thing that counts for me is if I like the music or not. But the band cannot win anyway.

totally agree.... To please every single fan is impossible, we all know that. Some love POP, some love HTDAAB. But for the pure reason that success is unfortunately measured by the number of records sold etc. I hope that the band doesn't get cold feet and stops making music they want to make (mind you, even tho the singles haven't performed well on the radio charts, the overall album sales haven't been that bad). I like to think they are (like you mentioned) too smart for that.

 

[DevilsShoes]

You all know how the media loves to take things out of context, and it's tabloid media we're talking about here.They're trying to manipulate that interview to make it soundl ike the band is blaming the fans. It's always amazing to see how quickly the fans are prepared to jump on the band.

I'd be inclined to agree with this. As soon as I read that part I felt that Bono was talking about the public at large, or at least the fans they'd acquired since 2000, rather than the more long term-followers, whom he knows have had to swallow some fairly demanding stuff in the past.

Lots of smart comments on here. I do think that perhaps unrealistic expectations played a part here. The band seemed to believe they were making a landmark album so it's no surprise they're a little disappointed with the outcome.

U2 have always tended to react well to (perceived) failure in the past, it's a real incentive for them to prove themselves next time around. I hope this gives them back their focus as well as their fire.

 

[roy]

I just think choice of lead singles but more importantly how they are promoted makes all the difference these days. Of course, U2 did a major NLOTH promo tour. However, where was the promotion for Boots 6 weeks earlier when it hit the radio? As much as people hate I-tunes U2, it got Vertigo out there, got peoples' attention and told them U2 had a new album coming out. I personally would have gone with NLOTH 2 or Magnificent as the first single, but Boots is the kind of song that could have been big if it had been promoted properly.

I completely agree with this.

The COMPLETE and utter mess they made of promoting the singles was IMO a critical reason for the album's average sales.

That and the fact they're seen as too old now.

 

[last unicorn]

U2 have always tended to react well to (perceived) failure in the past, it's a real incentive for them to prove themselves next time around. I hope this gives them back their focus as well as their fire.

Really? I thought they reacted the same to the mediabacklash that came with Pop and Rattle and Hum?

I understand the frustration. You believe in your work and then you feel it isn't reaching the audience like it's supposed to.

For me, U2 haven't lost anything. In fact I feel they've gained or re-gained a lot in recent years, and NLOTH is a great example of their new focus. I have been really proud of them for making that album and I'm still happy with it. But for a band like U2 who is used to being big and reaching a huge audience, it is understandably frustrating if their latest work isn't a commercial success. On the other hand, NLOTH is an album acknowledged by many critics to be one of their best. I think that should say a lot about it.

 

[guill]

They should not give up, this album can be what UF was to JT, there are some very good ideas in this album but not perfectly executed (uselessly complicated sometimes or too simple. NLOTH, WAS and Cedars are well balanced imo. Magnificent, MOS, UC, Fez, Breathe could be more simple, the tunes are good, there are good riffs, nice lyrics but it's missing simplicity. Perhaps they wanted to make something too different from Bomb but lost the plot a little bit, which is normal after 8 years in the comfort zone.

 

[DevilsShoes]

Really? I thought they reacted the same to the mediabacklash that came with Pop and Rattle and Hum?

I know that for Bono, failure is where he gets much of his inspiration from. People who are successful tend to just get on with enjoying being successful, but as we know very often great work emerges from struggle and strain. They were upset by the backlash to both R & H and Pop but it worked in their favour because it re-focussed them and spurred them on to recapture both creative and commercial ground. Where we differ is that I think the overall vision for NLOTH seems a little obscure or vague. It's reaching for something but I'm not quite sure what.

The huge success of AB speaks for itself but I still believe that ATYCLB is a strong album. I think on balance I'd still rather listen to BD, Walk On, Kite, IALW and New York than I'll Go Crazy, Boots, SUC or Breathe, I just think they're stronger and more inspired songs.

I mean, I love Magnificent, UC, WAS and COL but ultimately I do think that ATYCLB has a clarity and a spark that much of NLOTH lacks.

 

[U2opra]

If I was to describe what albums I hear in NLOTH, I would say TUF, HTDAAB and ATYCLB rolled into one, which is great but it doesn't allow many people (casual listeners) to take notice because to them it's not drastically different enough. For example there's no denying GOYB is the bands attempt of Vertigo 2.0 as some have already mentioned, making casual listeners immediately think "it's ok, but vertigo was better".

Speaking to my dad who is a casual U2 fan (who's favourite album is The Joshua Tree), he said he likes about 3 songs off NLOTH which are Crazy tonight, Magnificent and MOS. He told me all the others songs to him were too vague and hard to get into. He likes more simplistic songs that get to the point, while still disliking dumbed down lyrics from songs like GOYB and Vertigo. Example of songs that he says are good examples of really great U2 songwriting, are: ISHFWILF, WOWY, WTSHNN. He tells me, when he's listening to a new U2 album those are the types of songs he's looking for, that throw him into the song and allow him to imagine he's on some kind of spiritual journey with the band. He thinks ATYCLB and HTDAAB captured that concept for him more than NLOTH with songs like: BD, Walk On, Kite, COBL, SYCMIOYO. But before those albums he didn't 'get' Pop, Zooropa and he only enjoyed 2 songs from AB, those being: One and Ultraviolet.

I know a lot of people will disagree with me on this, but I think criticism is good. I hope it will drive U2 into working even harder, and coming up with new ideas. You see, I feel when U2 are in their safe zone of "this is great, we've got rave reviews and top selling numbers" they feel inclined for their next album to replicate that again - I certainly noticed it with GOYB and Crazy. But there's a flip side to all this (Which some of you have been saying) as it may push U2 into making songs that are aimed at doing well in the charts, and more dumbed down lyrics. I hope it goes the other way though, and it really pushes them to go even more experimental. For now though, it could go either way.

 

[BonosSaint]

I was going to add Springsteen here too. Bruce can do the whole "big" concert with the E Street Band if he wants to, but he can do quiet, intimate theatre if he also wants to.
.

Yep. Bruce too.

 

[Zoomerang96]

Really? Since you have shown nothing but negativity towards the band here on this board, I'm actually surprised that there is still something left to disappoint you. Btw, your comparison is bad. NLOTH is much better than Zooropa, which is by far the worst U2 album,and Pop, which could have been great.

Wow. You've lost it. You are u2fan2004! Aren't you? At the very least you're a new version of u2girl.

 

[gman]

I love how many try to explain the "failure" away. for me GAF is on the money. It is simple......all things considered....see below for explanation

Pretty simple: They just aren't as good as they used to be.

regardless of what you think of NLOTH, the above is true, Sadly! And many long term fans will probably agree with this. I dont think anyone who has discovered u2 this decade can really understand.

 

[Zoomerang96]

u2 are like the tv show's 'extras'. Most of us are Andy millman and the rest are the bbc and the dumb public at large who want nothing but stupid catchphrases.

 

[coolian2]

regardless of what you think of NLOTH, the above is true, Sadly!

depending on which u2 album is your favourite, you could have been potentially saying that since 1980.

if they've lost it, how come no line on the horizon is rated by so many fans here as being better than at least their last two albums, plus a fair whack of the rest of the catalogue?

or is it my opinion is fact day and i've missed it?