jick
Refugee
Here are excerpts from a TIME magazine article on U2's latest album:
----------------------------------------
"When it comes to signing off on a project," says Clayton, "you ask questions like, 'Have we got a first single to open the campaign?' Frankly, we were missing more than just a first single."
----------------------------------------
"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."
----------------------------------------
After 10 months of endless talking and recording-studio drudgery, U2 held another meeting and finally reached something approaching unanimity on the new album. "I do believe we have the hits now," says Clayton — and he's right. How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb is the catchiest album U2 has ever made.
---------------------------------------
"I suppose if people want to shower you with honors, the only reasonable thing to do is accept them," says Clayton.
---------------------------------------
Back in the Elevation Tour, Bono introduced Clayton as the musical conscience of the band. But based on the published reports, Clayton is actually the musical sellout of the band. It seems like Clayton is the one hindering them from pushing the envelope of art and taking creative risks at this stage of their career.
It seems he is just concerned about making "hits" and singles. He equates being the biggest band in the world to having three or four hit songs, and that ATYCLB was a failure because it had only one hit.
I always thought Clayton had a more profound understanding of music. I had high respect for Clayton to be a good neutralizer in the U2 camp. I thought he would be the one to keep the band from veering too far off. But now it seems like he is the shallow childish one who is concerned about nothing else but making hits and good singles. Perhaps he has a hidden fantasy to join some boyband that makes hits?
TIME Magazine is a very respected publication. I respect them so much because they have put U2 on their cover twice, so they know their music. When TIME magazine says the album has no depth, and that Clayton is the culprit for insisting that they needed to have more hits - then my respect for Clayton has dropped a few notches.
I think Clayton should stop being childish and shallow. He should be concerned about making great music, and not concerned about making hits and being showered with honors. For this album, Clayton is the singular reason U2 seem a little bit restrained. I hope U2 can bounce back from this debacle and make the songs more ambitious in the live setting (which they normally always do anyway).
Cheers,
J
----------------------------------------
"When it comes to signing off on a project," says Clayton, "you ask questions like, 'Have we got a first single to open the campaign?' Frankly, we were missing more than just a first single."
----------------------------------------
"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."
----------------------------------------
After 10 months of endless talking and recording-studio drudgery, U2 held another meeting and finally reached something approaching unanimity on the new album. "I do believe we have the hits now," says Clayton — and he's right. How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb is the catchiest album U2 has ever made.
---------------------------------------
"I suppose if people want to shower you with honors, the only reasonable thing to do is accept them," says Clayton.
---------------------------------------
Back in the Elevation Tour, Bono introduced Clayton as the musical conscience of the band. But based on the published reports, Clayton is actually the musical sellout of the band. It seems like Clayton is the one hindering them from pushing the envelope of art and taking creative risks at this stage of their career.
It seems he is just concerned about making "hits" and singles. He equates being the biggest band in the world to having three or four hit songs, and that ATYCLB was a failure because it had only one hit.
I always thought Clayton had a more profound understanding of music. I had high respect for Clayton to be a good neutralizer in the U2 camp. I thought he would be the one to keep the band from veering too far off. But now it seems like he is the shallow childish one who is concerned about nothing else but making hits and good singles. Perhaps he has a hidden fantasy to join some boyband that makes hits?
TIME Magazine is a very respected publication. I respect them so much because they have put U2 on their cover twice, so they know their music. When TIME magazine says the album has no depth, and that Clayton is the culprit for insisting that they needed to have more hits - then my respect for Clayton has dropped a few notches.
I think Clayton should stop being childish and shallow. He should be concerned about making great music, and not concerned about making hits and being showered with honors. For this album, Clayton is the singular reason U2 seem a little bit restrained. I hope U2 can bounce back from this debacle and make the songs more ambitious in the live setting (which they normally always do anyway).
Cheers,
J