The trouble is that people don't buy music any more. So far, no album released this year has sold 2M copies in the U.S. That is incredible. In 2000, albums would sell 10M copies just in the U.S. But thanks to illegal file-sharing, people just download an album. iTunes has helped, but now people "cherry pick" songs, which also hurts album sales. Some artists have huge iTunes hits, but their albums flop.
Bono, and the rest of U2 - including their management - have to accept this change.
I personally pretty much loathe Sweetest Thing in every format, so yes, I can say that I strongly prefer Boots.
Yes, I'm also surprised that this fact is often overlooked when the album is considered a commercial failure. Factor in a huge leak of the album weeks before its release--on top of the fact that folks illegally download even when the album is properly released on time; the iTunes buy-a-song effect; the fact that iTunes split its reporting of the album's rank by album version (thus keeping it from reaching the higher spot it really attained).....and so on, and so on.
A much more global interpretation of an album's success is required these days. I'd look at all of the following together: 1) album sales, 2) individual song sales, 3) ringtone/etc. sales during album's release, 4) increase in u2.com merchandise sales during album's release, 5) increase in popularity/transfers of U2 material on torrent sites during an album's release, 6) hell, bumps in one.org and Product(RED) hits & sales during an album's release. Look at all those things during a given timeframe before and after a new album's release and you'll see the cultural impact & success of the band and any new material. Look simply at album sales & you'll miss the boat.
A much more global interpretation of an album's success is required these days. I'd look at all of the following together: 1) album sales, 2) individual song sales, 3) ringtone/etc. sales during album's release, 4) increase in u2.com merchandise sales during album's release, 5) increase in popularity/transfers of U2 material on torrent sites during an album's release, 6) hell, bumps in one.org and Product(RED) hits & sales during an album's release. Look at all those things during a given timeframe before and after a new album's release and you'll see the cultural impact & success of the band and any new material. Look simply at album sales & you'll miss the boat.
Listen, it's fine if you don't like Zooropa. It's a style of music that some love and some hate. It's the fact that you slag off Zooropa and Pop whilst insisting everyone else isn't a proper fan unless they love the more recent albums makes you come off like a complete hypocrite.
And I say this as somebody who thinks AB is overrated.
I wish they'd just decide "fuck it, we're big enough and rich enough to do what we/the omg real fans want" and go for it.
I think what Bono is talking about with pop songs won't start to happen until the album after SOA. To me, they're getting a bad taste in their mouths with the NLOTH material and will want SOA to be out sooner rather than later; while the tour is still on.
To me, it is a very frightening article and kind of what I expected would happen. An album that was supposed to be more experimental, but really wasn't, due to the addition of several "safety" songs that were supposed to chart well. And now, Bono kind of alludes to the problem being that they didn't have strong enough pop tunes on it. In my opinion, the album's weakness was trying too hard on getting pop songs on it and not focusing enough on the album as a whole. The whole thing has no real identity. Now we've been warned, more blatent attempts at radio hits coming. I have to say, its fighting fire with fire. With talk of going back to the Rubin sessions, I think we can say the next project after SOA will almost definitely be an ATYCLB clone. So Bono, NLOTH wasn't too challenging; it wasn't challenging enough. From a lot of what I read on these forums, it would appear that U2 fans were more than ready for a challenge. Instead, we got an album that doesn't quite make sense. Is it supposed to be experimental? Is it supposed to be a pop record? Is it even a complete idea? I guess, in that sense, it is challenging. What Bono says is downright frightening. The spirit of going off in a totally different direction without a safety net is apparently gone from this band and was the whole reason I liked them so much in the first place.
... thought about the same, when reading unicorn's statement ...Listen, it's fine if you don't like Zooropa. It's a style of music that some love and some hate. It's the fact that you slag off Zooropa and Pop whilst insisting everyone else isn't a proper fan unless they love the more recent albums makes you come off like a complete hypocrite.
i really have nothing to add either than i think there is a huge overreaction to this article.
"We're trying to do everything we can on that front without having to change what we're about artistically: The music stays sacrosanct," The Edge says. "We are much more focused on being the best than being the biggest."
And that means perhaps making the kind of album that doesn't guarantee hits but does guarantee surprises and new ideas, which "No Line" has delivered.
"The biggest danger for a band like U2 is accepting that you've reached a certain age, and, therefore, you can just actually sit back," says Mullen.
"That's not what we signed up to do. We want to make relevant, great music, and Bono has said numerous times, 'One crap album and you're out,'" he adds. "We've avoided it so far."
I agree with Bono when he said that if you love your music, you want to communicate it to an audience. It's about a bigger experience. It's not just something you make for your own little artistic pleasure. That clip where he said if you want to make art just for yourself, you can go become a potter.
And those 5 lines (or so) the original poster quoted are just a hack job from some person with Internet access. The full article can be found here:
U2 and Bono adapt to changing times - Yahoo! News
And that full article also includes lines like:
And those 5 lines (or so) the original poster quoted are just a hack job from some person with Internet access. The full article can be found here:
U2 and Bono adapt to changing times - Yahoo! News
And that full article also includes lines like:
I think their status right now is exactly like it was in 1997 -- almost uncannily so.
I think JoRu made a good post, above, and has outlined the dilemma U2 face. I think their status right now is exactly like it was in 1997 -- almost uncannily so. Studio album is released early in the year after a looooong wait, so the stakes are high. The album is a compromised "mixed-bag" of relatively experimental tracks and standard U2-anthems. The songs feel somewhat labored and overproduced, perhaps because they spent too long recording or because too many cooks spoiled the broth. The first single turned off some and was met with a collective yawn by the pop mainstream, and the strong but underwhelming album sales (by U2 standards) are set against an international stadium tour with a more-urgent-need-than-usual to put asses in seats.
All of the above could describe 1997 or 2009.
Now, I have a solution for U2. The most non-commercially-considered album they've made yet, I think, is Zooropa. It sold well during the ZooTV tour even though it failed to produce any big radio hits, largely because U2's star and profile were BIG at the time, and the alternative rock boom made Zooropa accessible to many younger fans (an advantage not enjoyed today when U2 are old and the younger fans listen to Miley Cyrus). Still, the left-of-centre Zooropa did very well on its own terms, and nobody complained about its underwhelming commerciality.
Yet, many complained about the underwhelming commerciality of both Pop and NLOTH. Why the big difference in perception?
The difference is down to the fact that Zooropa was perceived as an offshoot of the Achtung Baby / ZooTV era. It didn't follow years of waiting, and it wasn't hyped at all when it came out.
So, here's what I think they should do from now on: Instead of releasing another compromised mixed-bag album (like NLOTH, which I think is easily their weakest record since October), they should release two albums almost at the same time. First the big one, which is more accessible to the casual music fan, and then the more self-indulgent / experimental one, just a few months later. The first one to satisfy their seemingly obsessive need to be "big", and the second to satisfy their artier impulses (which aren't that arty -- even at their most experimental, U2 are still pretty mainstream).
I'm not saying the second album should be Russian polkas in 6/8 time produced by Eno with a Vietnamese monk chanting over it; it could potentially still be quite a commercially successful work (like Zooropa), but it can be more of a piece, and it can come after the big one that has the radio hits, etc. If it sells, great, and if it flops, who cares?
My idea would be unnecessary if they would put out an album every year or two, but the releases are so infrequent now that I don't think the mixed-big approach of NLOTH is going to serve them well (or satisfy them) in the years to come, especially with the sound-byte / 3 seconds' attention span audience they're continuously trying to win over.
I think JoRu made a good post, above, and has outlined the dilemma U2 face. I think their status right now is exactly like it was in 1997 -- almost uncannily so. Studio album is released early in the year after a looooong wait, so the stakes are high. The album is a compromised "mixed-bag" of relatively experimental tracks and standard U2-anthems. The songs feel somewhat labored and overproduced, perhaps because they spent too long recording or because too many cooks spoiled the broth. The first single turned off some and was met with a collective yawn by the pop mainstream, and the strong but underwhelming album sales (by U2 standards) are set against an international stadium tour with a more-urgent-need-than-usual to put asses in seats.
All of the above could describe 1997 or 2009.
Now, I have a solution for U2. The most non-commercially-considered album they've made yet, I think, is Zooropa. It sold well during the ZooTV tour even though it failed to produce any big radio hits, largely because U2's star and profile were BIG at the time, and the alternative rock boom made Zooropa accessible to many younger fans (an advantage not enjoyed today when U2 are old and the younger fans listen to Miley Cyrus). Still, the left-of-centre Zooropa did very well on its own terms, and nobody complained about its underwhelming commerciality.
Yet, many complained about the underwhelming commerciality of both Pop and NLOTH. Why the big difference in perception?
The difference is down to the fact that Zooropa was perceived as an offshoot of the Achtung Baby / ZooTV era. It didn't follow years of waiting, and it wasn't hyped at all when it came out.
So, here's what I think they should do from now on: Instead of releasing another compromised mixed-bag album (like NLOTH, which I think is easily their weakest record since October), they should release two albums almost at the same time. First the big one, which is more accessible to the casual music fan, and then the more self-indulgent / experimental one, just a few months later. The first one to satisfy their seemingly obsessive need to be "big", and the second to satisfy their artier impulses (which aren't that arty -- even at their most experimental, U2 are still pretty mainstream).
I'm not saying the second album should be Russian polkas in 6/8 time produced by Eno with a Vietnamese monk chanting over it; it could potentially still be quite a commercially successful work (like Zooropa), but it can be more of a piece, and it can come after the big one that has the radio hits, etc. If it sells, great, and if it flops, who cares?
My idea would be unnecessary if they would put out an album every year or two, but the releases are so infrequent now that I don't think the mixed-big approach of NLOTH is going to serve them well (or satisfy them) in the years to come, especially with the sound-byte / 3 seconds' attention span audience they're continuously trying to win over.
not to mention it did win them a grammy, which some consider to be a sign of success. (two if you count the zoo tv concert, actually.)Zooropa was not really considered an offshoot by anyone outside the die hard community, it was just considered another album. It was hyped quite a bit and Numb and Lemon did well on video outlets but not on radio. So I'm not sure where your perceptions of Zooropa are coming from...
This time around they have very little to no markets for their songs to play. MTV is dead, radio gets worse every year, and now we have the internet allowing anyone to steal music. So almost nothing was on their side this time around.
1. the 360 tour is considered a smashing success, setting box office and attendance records and selling out almost everywhere; the reviews have been stellar. by contrast, what's most remembered about Popmart is that no one went to it, and the half empty stadiums particularly on the second N.A. leg. that was a dismal time to be a U2 fan.
2. despite your personal feelings, NLOTH, while not a commercial smash, is certainly a stronger album than Pop -- "stronger" in the sense of critical acclaim and the general satisfaction of long-time U2 fans with the album.
...nor do they look like they're trying to play dress-up with a culture that they dont really understand, like they did with Pop. nor are they jumping on the bandwagon of trendy sounds, like they did with Pop.
...we're not going to get the blood and guts of a divorce like we did in 1991.