Image '08
- Thread starter ahittle
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Zoots
Blue Crack Supplier
I want Tonight part 2 
That'd be a fuckin' classic. I was reading some previous posts on this thread. I have to agree in part to something that was discussed:
If U2 is so bent on changing this time around; to be effective, not only should the music have a new experimental sound, they should change their style (looks-wise).
...But getting rid of Bono's sunglasses might be a touch too drastic. The style of shades is in need of an overhaul though. I'd also love a return to Stadium shows in the U.S. and not just Europe like Vertigo was. I don't want them to re-tread the same ground, but putting more "show" into their concerts again would probably energize a new look even more. And another thing that would be a step in the right direction would be to use more obscure album-art than just a picture of the band on the front. I just want to see things shift into a totally different gear; go for a lot of attention, but in a totally new way.
If U2 is so bent on changing this time around; to be effective, not only should the music have a new experimental sound, they should change their style (looks-wise).
...But getting rid of Bono's sunglasses might be a touch too drastic. The style of shades is in need of an overhaul though. I'd also love a return to Stadium shows in the U.S. and not just Europe like Vertigo was. I don't want them to re-tread the same ground, but putting more "show" into their concerts again would probably energize a new look even more. And another thing that would be a step in the right direction would be to use more obscure album-art than just a picture of the band on the front. I just want to see things shift into a totally different gear; go for a lot of attention, but in a totally new way.
U2DMfan
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
The thing I don't like about the sunglasses, has nothing to do with fashion or anything, it's about sincerity.
Nothing makes Bono seem less sincere than meeting the President (even if he is a douche) or being anywhere outside of pop-culture-dom and have those stupid fucking glasses on.
I remember when he was on Larry King, he briefly mentioned his light sensitivity and of course, the follow-up question was not asked. "Why not just wear regular eye glasses?" Shit, Bono, wise up. It's hard enough to get people to take him seriously on his Africa efforts because people think it's a fame scam or something but his actual answer had something to do with (crudely paraphrased) "actually I am light sensitive but mostly it's because of ego". Fuck me. His dry wit has never translated greatly either. Who needs a kick in the balls more than a douche wearing sunglasses indoors? I mean, I love Bono, I support his cause in Africa, I think he's about as admirable as a rock star could be. But for the love of God, lose those fucking comical shades.
Well then we have the fashion/style angles. I dunno much about that. I mean, at some point it is a tired look. I think that was 1999.
If i were Ali, I'd beg him to lose the glasses.
All that said, he could wear the biggest, stupidest, cartoonish sunglasses he wants if the new music is great.
Nothing makes Bono seem less sincere than meeting the President (even if he is a douche) or being anywhere outside of pop-culture-dom and have those stupid fucking glasses on.
I remember when he was on Larry King, he briefly mentioned his light sensitivity and of course, the follow-up question was not asked. "Why not just wear regular eye glasses?" Shit, Bono, wise up. It's hard enough to get people to take him seriously on his Africa efforts because people think it's a fame scam or something but his actual answer had something to do with (crudely paraphrased) "actually I am light sensitive but mostly it's because of ego". Fuck me. His dry wit has never translated greatly either. Who needs a kick in the balls more than a douche wearing sunglasses indoors? I mean, I love Bono, I support his cause in Africa, I think he's about as admirable as a rock star could be. But for the love of God, lose those fucking comical shades.
Well then we have the fashion/style angles. I dunno much about that. I mean, at some point it is a tired look. I think that was 1999.
If i were Ali, I'd beg him to lose the glasses.
All that said, he could wear the biggest, stupidest, cartoonish sunglasses he wants if the new music is great.
Last edited:
Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I think both U2 and Bono in particular will be heading into this one in a pretty dangerous position, in that if they don't get it *just* right they'll be back in one of those R&H type corners again very quickly. I think the sharks are circling and anything seen as another Bomb (even if it sounds quite different on the surface), particularly if it comes with Bomb like self-hype, or anything that is the extreme opposite (a grand experimentation gone drasticaly wrong) and the sharks will start snapping on a large scale.
I just think they're in that spot once again and this time they should try and stay ahead of it, rather than let it blindside them and send them off on some collective breakdown. It will be much larger this time as well. Far larger than post-R&H or post-Pop, simply because they've got the added weight of The Bono this time around. As much as there will be group who'd love to bash U2, and as much as a lot of that has always focused on Bono, these days his image and size at the very least matches U2's as a collective. There'll be people who don't really give a fuck about U2's music - good or bad - but will love to take a shot at Bono, when a few years ago the two were almost completely intertwined. Not so anymore. I think the number of people who like U2 but think Bono is a complete bore has gone through the roof. It's dangerous for the band when in the past you either liked them both, or hated them both.
U2 simply need that elusive 3rd masterpiece musically, and they need a more modest, respectful approach to getting it out there. They need some of the most original, creative and simply undeniably great music they have ever produced, and they need it to sell themselves. The rest - band image, tour innovation etc - falls into place after that. No need for gimmicks. In fact I'd love the album to drop in there with little or no hype or warning. Keep up the "err, just working on some songs" line and then "Hey! New album in 2 months kids! There's a new single on iTunes tomorrow!" and then it's fucking awesome and that's that.
I just think they're in that spot once again and this time they should try and stay ahead of it, rather than let it blindside them and send them off on some collective breakdown. It will be much larger this time as well. Far larger than post-R&H or post-Pop, simply because they've got the added weight of The Bono this time around. As much as there will be group who'd love to bash U2, and as much as a lot of that has always focused on Bono, these days his image and size at the very least matches U2's as a collective. There'll be people who don't really give a fuck about U2's music - good or bad - but will love to take a shot at Bono, when a few years ago the two were almost completely intertwined. Not so anymore. I think the number of people who like U2 but think Bono is a complete bore has gone through the roof. It's dangerous for the band when in the past you either liked them both, or hated them both.
U2 simply need that elusive 3rd masterpiece musically, and they need a more modest, respectful approach to getting it out there. They need some of the most original, creative and simply undeniably great music they have ever produced, and they need it to sell themselves. The rest - band image, tour innovation etc - falls into place after that. No need for gimmicks. In fact I'd love the album to drop in there with little or no hype or warning. Keep up the "err, just working on some songs" line and then "Hey! New album in 2 months kids! There's a new single on iTunes tomorrow!" and then it's fucking awesome and that's that.
Last edited:
last unicorn
Blue Crack Addict
I don't agree about Bono's sunglasses, they are his trademark and obviously, besides the fashion aspect, he has other good reasons to wear them. We have seen a lot of more or less private pictures of him where he had taken the glasses off and he always takes them off when the journalists or whoever have stopped taking their pictures (e. g. in meetings, interviews, and so on).
But then again, Bono is an iconic figure and the glasses are his trademark, they are just part of his image, I don't mind him wearing them.
And I actually don't know anyone who does not like Bono or U2 because of the sunglasses he's wearing. To be honest, most people I know don't care much about their music, but many say they admire Bono as an activist.
But then again, Bono is an iconic figure and the glasses are his trademark, they are just part of his image, I don't mind him wearing them.
And I actually don't know anyone who does not like Bono or U2 because of the sunglasses he's wearing. To be honest, most people I know don't care much about their music, but many say they admire Bono as an activist.
Artdirector: U2 incorporated the Euro early 90's "Madchester" sounds in their album, they did not invent anything. Did they destroy JT-U2? Yes, but musically they took out from the Euro sounds just as they took from the USA for JT.
Yes, I think a lot of the people want BabyZooPassPop part II.
I do think, and the interviews and Morocco seems to show, that they have the license now to try a new sound (I would also dare a guess that they will try to one up the reviewers by starting the next reinvention one album early, compared to previous U2 trilogies). Not that I minded the last two albums, but it is time for something new. And the whole Elevation/Vertigo era is reminiscent of JT/Rattle and Hum: first the critics love them, then there's critisism (especially of the "preachy" Bono). Also, the look between the two eras isn't as distinctive as, say Zoo - Pop or JT - UF or War - UF. And the last few shows in Japan/Australia/NZ felt more relaxed and fun (as, say, Lovetown compared to JT).
There are, will be and probably always were people who dislike "U2" but actually have a problem with Bono. I don't think that's about to change anytime soon, even if the band doesn't release another note in the future.
It's the shaving he needs to do if he wants to look younger (and drop the long hair - it hasn't worked since Zoo days). It's become such a part of his image (for all we know he may have gotten light sensitive over the years due to the shades), I don't think he would entirely loose the glasses. I won't mind if he does, but I'm not opposed to them either - especially the see-through ones he's been wearing since 2000. And the shades haven't stopped him from getting the meetings and deals with presidents all over, so I doubt they have a problem with it.
Shock horror a celebrity/rock star wearing shades. Not the first one, the only one and certainly not the last one to do it.
Yes, I think a lot of the people want BabyZooPassPop part II.
I do think, and the interviews and Morocco seems to show, that they have the license now to try a new sound (I would also dare a guess that they will try to one up the reviewers by starting the next reinvention one album early, compared to previous U2 trilogies). Not that I minded the last two albums, but it is time for something new. And the whole Elevation/Vertigo era is reminiscent of JT/Rattle and Hum: first the critics love them, then there's critisism (especially of the "preachy" Bono). Also, the look between the two eras isn't as distinctive as, say Zoo - Pop or JT - UF or War - UF. And the last few shows in Japan/Australia/NZ felt more relaxed and fun (as, say, Lovetown compared to JT).
There are, will be and probably always were people who dislike "U2" but actually have a problem with Bono. I don't think that's about to change anytime soon, even if the band doesn't release another note in the future.
It's the shaving he needs to do if he wants to look younger (and drop the long hair - it hasn't worked since Zoo days). It's become such a part of his image (for all we know he may have gotten light sensitive over the years due to the shades), I don't think he would entirely loose the glasses. I won't mind if he does, but I'm not opposed to them either - especially the see-through ones he's been wearing since 2000. And the shades haven't stopped him from getting the meetings and deals with presidents all over, so I doubt they have a problem with it.
Shock horror a celebrity/rock star wearing shades. Not the first one, the only one and certainly not the last one to do it.
I can't believe people actually give a toss about the sunnies. I remember during the Vertigo Tour, people were harping on about during which songs Bono took off his glasses. At not a single concert of the ten I saw did I even notice when he was and wasn't wearing his sunnies. I couldn't care less. I don't know why anybody would even want to make it an issue, and I can't fathom how it makes any tangible impact on anything U2 does.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Axver said:
artdirector
Refugee
U2 Girl: Then why has their sound lasted the test of time and the machester sound still trying to get a grasp on what they want to do (Radiohead). They were influenced with the sound of manchester and they used that influence to INVENT their own. An invention that again other bands try to mimic. The JT was straight taken blues and gospel. But AB, no one knew were to classify it. Was it dance, was it pop, was it rock, was it alternative? It was ACHTUNG BABY!
xaviMF22
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
Utoo said:Listen, folks-----The greatest thing the band can do for their image on this next album/tour/promo period is for Bono to stop wearing the damn sunglasses. If he wants to wear them on tour for the lights and his reactions, etc., that's fine. But for promo photos, interviews, album cover, etc., he needs to be sunglass-free this time around.
If we're going to get a new direction in U2's music, it's time for a new direction in Bono's style as well. Sure, he's changed the style of the sunglasses, added a cowboy hat there and there. But sunglass-free opens the door to so many possibilities---from soul-bearing to bad-ass.
I hope you're joking
Axver said:
That was based on I Love Lucy. Everybody knows that.
Dammit! You'd think that at least one of the dozen U2 books, totaling probably $250, would've told me that!
Oh, wait, even the official U2 books have glaring mistakes like "dream it all up again" being on New Year's Eve.....
artdirector
Refugee
Achtung Baby!
Utoo said:
Dammit! You'd think that at least one of the dozen U2 books, totaling probably $250, would've told me that!
Yeah, some of the official books even claim there's this guy in U2 called "Bono". What kind of a name is that? You'd think they'd remember that there are five people in U2: Edge, Adam, Larry, Billy, and Abraham Lincoln.
shart1780
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Yeah, I don't care what Bono does with his sunglasses to be honest. I remember a thread where people were rating their favorite tours, and a factor a lot of people mentioned was whether or not he took his sunglasses off during som songs. Seriously, is eyewear in a rock band that important to you? It's so trivial it's not even worth mentioning.
mofo82
Refugee
shart1780 said:
I'm not sure who this was directed towards, but I'm kinda tired giving my opinion on these boards if the things I want to respond to are "so trivial that its not even worth mentioning". It seems all of the outspoken members of this forum always have something to say like this. Then, the thread gets hijacked with some other kinda bs that has nothing to do with the original topic, and usually the same "it doesn't matter' bs from somebody. It happens so much.
I guess it mattered enough to me and others to mention Bono's look that I wanted to get involved in the conversation.
This topic, again, was about image. Not "The most important thing in a Rock band" When there's a topic about the # of times a certain song was played or where it was played, I don't go dropping in and posting how irrevelant that show was because I wasn't there.
The glasses have been a huge part of bono's get up/ public identity and he obviously cares enough to go out, buy them and put them on his face. If we can talk about all the props that go into a show like the heart, ellispse, lemon, then go into the personas that bono had through the 90's with macphisto, mirrorball man, etc, then why can't it be brought up about his props.
So, yes his shades are fuckin' cool; I think it would be interesting to see them less and see what kind of on stage persona Bono would bring if he didn't wear them at all.
schnumi
Refugee
I think more people want a "ABZOOPOP" thing because of the fact that U2 back then was more like: "We make the music we want and don't care if people like it or if it doesnt sell fantastic" attitude.
Ofcourse they cared (see after POP) but right now people get the idea that U2 are getting comfy and just make the same stuff over and over again because it works saleswise. Ofcourse they are still making music they want but i get the feeling that the part of taking risks has left them a bit.
Ofcourse they cared (see after POP) but right now people get the idea that U2 are getting comfy and just make the same stuff over and over again because it works saleswise. Ofcourse they are still making music they want but i get the feeling that the part of taking risks has left them a bit.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
schnumi said:
this isn't true, though.
AB and the rest were as highly calculated a career move as any other album U2 has ever made. they knew they had to change and get rid of the pompous cowboy image the captured on celluloid in R&H. so they put on vinyal and changed their sound, and it was a smashing success, they became a band for the ages, sold millions of records and tickets.
mission accomplished.
Zoots
Blue Crack Supplier
schnumi said:
Yes. Agreed completely.
Irvine511 said:
Achtung Baby sold gazillions but Zooropa didn't quite reach that level, as far as I know. So why the hell did they continue on with an even more experimental route with Passengers if they were so calculated and fearful of failure??? They weren't. They marched on doing what they wanted to do and not caring for what will sell. That is the only plausible explanation in my mind. Come 2000, they buckled.
schnumi said:
You really think, knowing the way they operate, they're that cynical now ? Doing the last two albums just to make more money ? I think they just naturally ran out of the experimental era. (it is still there in bits and pieces: Mercy, LAPOE, Fast cars...)
I think one album came out of U2 listening to the pop invasion in the late 90's (like Rattle and Hum came out of them listeing to blues or AB came out from listening the Madchester/Europe music scene, and like Pop came out of the fascination with dance music and britpop - the more straightforward, rock songs and like album 12, apparently, will come out of their Morocco experience).
The other came out of them listening to the rise of the "the bands" in early 00's. However, Edge was left pretty much out on his own writing the music, with Bono's absence (for a very good reason), and maybe this eventually prompted the more classic U2 sounds on Bomb. If you mixed all the previous U2 albums into one it'd probably sound a lot like Bomb. The only problem is, you can only do this once. They seem to realise this - see reports from U2.com on how the Morocco sessions sound differ from the last album.
schnumi
Refugee
Like i said they are still making music they want and enjoy but as i see we agree on, the experimental part is pretty much gone or at least put on a low.
And yes i do believe they made some choices because it would work better for commericial reasons, choices that they wouldnt have made in the 90's era.
And yes i do believe they made some choices because it would work better for commericial reasons, choices that they wouldnt have made in the 90's era.
Similar threads
