The News: Midnight Oil beat U2. An Opinion.

[AlanPARTRIDGE]

Hello international community.

A big recommendation:

BUY the New Midnight Oil Album CAPRICORNIA!

It is the best thing you'll do all year.

And Americans and Europeans, make sure you catch them. They are touring at the moment. Aussies have to wait to OCTOBER.

U2 and Midnight Oil are my equal two favorite bands. I often stand by Midnight Oil though, because they have held strongly to their beliefs over the last 20 years, where as U2 has sacrificed a number of them for the sake of popularity.

And a Midnight Oil show is much more intense and electrifying, compared to any U2 show.

[AN OPINION follows]
Lyrically:
The Oil's spur people to action and thought more than Bono. Bono takes people to another planet.
Musically:
The Oil's are more interesting and better players. Makes for longer term interest. U2 are much simpler musically which appeal to a wider community. which allows their message or lyrics to influence a greater number of people.
Band togetherness:
The Oils: 5 Members, 2 changes (they have had 3 bass players) for 27 years
U2: 4 Members, No changes for 26 years
Touring.
Midnight Oil: When they tour play about 4 dates a week small venues for increased intesity (IRVING PLAZA size)
U2: When they tour play 2 - 3 dates a week.
small venues for increased intensity (MADISON SQUARE GARDEN SIZE).

Albums:

The Oils: 10 full length studio albums
U2: 10 full length studio albums (if you include R'nH)


I don't know why I am doing this. I think I have just recently rediscovered the Oils and I wanted to write down my thoughts somewhere... feel free to comment.

 

[STING2]

Sorry, but I don't see anything by Midnight Oil as being more complex than U2. In any event it does not matter, because simplicity with taste can sometimes be one of the most difficult things in music to achieve. I'll take one of U2s simplest guitar parts being "I WILL FOLLOW" over any of U2s more complex arrangements any day. Original melodic beauty is difficult to achieve.
Midnight Oil are not bad, but their certainly not on the level of U2. Midnight Oil plays a place like Irving Plaza because they are not popular enough to play a larger venue in the USA. U2 played Arena's on this tour because of uncertainty before hand about the demand for U2 tickets and to keep the cost of the tour down and simple. Its clear now in retrospect that a Stadium tour would not have been a problem.
Midnight Oil are a good band from OZ, but to be honest, I like INXS better. U2 became popular back in the early 80s because of their strength as a live act. They were well ahead as a live act before they started to sell huge numbers of albums. Never once have U2 compromised their music to be popular or the current flavor of the month. Its what they did in the early days and have continued to do today. There has never been a Joshua Tree II, nor will there ever be one. They are simply the best, but also very good people that I was fortunate to meet during the ZOO TV tour when they came to my town.

 

[STING2]

For your information U2 played four to five shows a week on the last tour and I'd be curious to know which beliefs you think U2 sacrificed to be popular? I don't know of any!

 

[AlanPARTRIDGE]

Love U2. Don't get me wrong. And it was an opinion piece.

BUT. U2 have constantly admitted that ATYCLB was delibrately made so that it could compete with the pop-charts. Do you think they would have pushed the album so much with promo appearances if they didn't want to be 'popular'. They sacrificed the experimentation of the band and they won't go to Australia because they won't make enough money. They were very angry at America in the early 80s and now you see Bono, practically an American citizen with the flag on the inner lining of his jacket, shouting U-S-A before songs. Can you imagine him with the Union jack on his jacket lining and shouting United-Kingdom!

I'm sure most people would agree that U2 have sacrificed at least some of their original convictions for the sake of popularity. I think it is naive to think that they haven't amidst all the pressures of a market economy. YET, my point is. Midnight Oil still are not afraid to get angry at whoever they like. They can go to America straight after Sept 11. And sing a song like "US Forces" which totally criticises US military involvement in The Middle East. I don't think U2 have the guts to do that any more, even though they probably once agreed with Midnight Oil on "US Forces".

 

[STING2]

Sorry, but I have never seen anything that would indicate that ATYCLB was made simply for competing on the "POP" charts. These were simply great songs that were written by them, and experimentation does not only mean albums like ZOOROPA and POP. When asked about the album being a back to U2 roots work, BONO has rejected that notion as he should. They have never done a Wild Honey before or a song like "In A Little While".
If it was about getting played on USA radio, why did Elevation and Walk On both fail to make the HOT 100 airplay charts? Stuck...peaked at #52 and Beautiful Day only made it to #21. When it comes to airplay, the experimental POP did just as good.
But the album has sold twice as much as POP because of the strength and quality of the music. As far as promotion, can you point to a time in U2s history when the band would refuse to play the Super Bowl or another show? U2 did tons of TV shows in the early 80s.
What I find strange are bands that are signed to major record labels and then for the sake of being "cool" or maintaining street cred, they won't do a major TV show or sporting event. A pathetic attempt to disguise the fact that they are with a major record label and do want to market their music.
As far as U2 and their politics, yes the band have been critical of CERTAIN aspects of USA policy, but not all policy. They were never peace at any cost pacifist that many believed them to be. BONO was very hawkish and wanted the USA to start bombing the Serbs in Bosnia back in 1993!(read Until The End OF The World by Bill Flanigan for that)
Also U2 were much younger back in the early 80s and new less and had seen less of the world than they have today. BONO is a much smarter and more knowledgable person today compared to 1982 when he was 22. At some point now, he may even get a graduate Degree in Economics.
I have a German show on the WAR tour where he happily picked out an American flag from the crowd in 1983. To be honest I really cannot see anything that has been sacrificed as far as their views.
Certainly as one grows older their views may change as they learn more and discover more about the world. Perhaps Midnight Oil unfortunately have curtains wrapped around their heads and can't see the light. Its a shame and very sad that they would write a song like US forces. They obviously know little and have a lot to learn on that subject matter.
I base my observations on what is factual and logical given those facts. I see your opinions as more of an attempt to paint U2 into a certain corner without knowing and understanding various facts about the bands history over the past 25 years.
To be honest, the best exposure comes from controversy. Just look at Manson or M&M. In that sense, one could argue that Midnight Oil is for more guilty of the "shamefull" pursuit of exposure.

 

[AlanPARTRIDGE]

No I am not painting U2 in a corner. Shock-horror I am just speaking of things that I disagree with about them. Which is healthy. Like I said, I really like U2.

I have read Until The End of The World. And you re-inforced my point. That was 1993. This is now.

Surely you are not suggesting that U2 has done just as many TV appearances to promote UF, JT, RandH, AB, Zooropa, POP compared to the appearences done to promote ATYCLB. ATYCLB has been promoted to death. And during Achtung, Zooropa and POP U2 would most definitly refused to play the Superbowl. It is so out of character with their anti-"for love of money, money, money, more money..." "the God I believe in isn't short of cash mister""peeling off those dollar bills.... slapping 'em down". Can you really see U2 writing a song today which critisises love of money. I don't think they could, it would be too hypocritical.

I am a massive U2 fan, been so since childhood. Been to a number of shows (well as many as an Aussie can get to!). I have read Flanagan's book and Into the heart as well as others. So I am informed about U2.

I have also read up on Midnight Oil, met the band members. Been to a number of shows. Own a lot of their albums. I am well informed about them as well.

What do u know about the oils?

Peter Garrett has a degree in Law. President of numerous foundations. I don't think he is as naive as you make him out to be. He definitly knows his stuff. He has toured the world a number of times, so its not like he just has an Aussie view point. Sure he hasn't been on TV as much as Bono or shaken hands with the Pope. But really does that make you a smarter, more informed person. I think not.

You really think Midnight Oil are out for a shameful pursuit of exposure through controversy. I hardly think that Midnight Oil standing up for the oppressed minorities of the world is a shameless pursuit of exposure.

When I spoke of touring. They could play arenas. But instead sell out club venues for cost price. They are not money grabbing. They could be, trust me, they have a big enough following. But they don't try and live like "spoilt rotten rock stars"-bono.

AND. There were countless interviews. I'll dig them up if you want, where Bono specifically said that they" wanted to bite the arse of the pop charts" and "compete with the mainstream". Surely you remember these quotes, if you are so highly read?

 

[z edge]

Originally posted by AlanPARTRIDGE:
. They were very angry at America in the early 80s and now you see Bono, practically an American citizen with the flag on the inner lining of his jacket, shouting U-S-A before songs. Can you imagine him with the Union jack on his jacket lining and shouting United-Kingdom!

Well they still play BTBS, here in America, but they don't seem to have a problem with our policy anymore. The song takes on different meanings, and I interpret it this time around as being "gun control".

And Bono does have a place in NY, why shouldn't he be affected. Perhaps shouting USA and wearing the flag in his jacket is an act of compassion (since that is his only outlet, singing) and his way to pay respect for lives lost and people grieving.

And for the record, he had a flag in his jacket before 9/11, I believe in the 'elevation' video. Maybe the first leg of the tour was about rediscovering America, and thats why he originally had it in there. Of course it took on a whole new meaning later.

. YET, my point is. Midnight Oil still are not afraid to get angry at whoever they like. They can go to America straight after Sept 11. And sing a song like "US Forces" which totally criticises US military involvement in The Middle East. I don't think U2 have the guts to do that any more, even though they probably once agreed with Midnight Oil on "US Forces".

If they still are singing this song now, then are they taking a stand against our current actions?

As a former member of "US forces" who served in various capacities in the Middle East, I would be kind of curious.

 

[STING2]

I certainly do remember all those quotes and in none of them did BONO say they "compromised their music and their beliefs with ATYCLB in order to get to the top of the charts"! They did say they wanted to be successful but they have said the same thing for every single album they have put out period! ATYCLB is a classic album and I am very happy that U2 put it out. It is probably their third best album ever and according to the Edge, their second best.
If you go back to BOY, October, WAR there are tons of TV shows that the band was on in Europe! I just recently got some of these on tape. The band and Paul McGuinness have always done everything in their power to promote the band. The band did the Super Bowl for FREE in case you did not know. I could definitely see the band doing that during the Joshua Tree or Achtung Baby. The awards shows like the Grammy's were there just as they are now and the band was there. They played the MTV awards show on POP, had a Sattelite hook up during ZOO TV. The band films a major motion picture during the Joshua Tree tour and then puts it in the Theater the next year. Rattle and Hum was Awesome and I'm happy the band did it as it successfuly exposed to band to a lot of younger people not old enough to either go or get to concerts at my age then. I could that be out of character with the promotion they have done on ATYCLB. There were MTV specials and interview just like there are today. There were interviews by other media outlets as well. You should of seen what it was like when the band came to my hometown in 1992! The level of promotion was certainly there and the band was seen just as much in the media in 1987 to 1993 as they have been the past couple of years if not more so.

As far as BONO wanting airstrikes against the Bosnian Serb army in 1993, that reinforces my point that the band was not opposed to the USA's use of force abroad. The band made critical comments about US policy in central and South America and general critical comments about the nuclear arms race back in 1983, but it would be incorrect to take that to mean that they were apposed to other 90% of things involving US foreign policy and some how anti-American. I see nothing out of character with the band supporting US policy now or waving the American flag. I'm sorry, but overall, U2 has always loved America.
So to sum up, based on the facts again, U2 have not done anything out of the ordinary as far as their promotion of ATYCLB, they have done the same things they have always done in the past. If you want to play with quotes go ahead, but I have quotes from BONO saying essentially the same thing during the WAR tour. In 2000, its Biting the Arse of the POP charts, while in 1983 it was "the war on boring music". The idea that U2 are doing things differently as far as promotion this time around or have compromised their music are simply unfounded and not supported by any facts. In fact the only thing you mention was a quote that only showed that they wanted to be successful which is something they have said since DAY 1!
I certainly do not know as much about Midnight Oil as I do U2. I would find ANYONE writing a song that was anti US military intervention in the Middle East to be stupid and offensive and simply wrong. I would question their knowledge on the subject matter as well.
To the last point I can think of, while Midnight Oil is a great band, they have failed to become successful in the USA. They have only One Platinum album and thats it. There is no way in hell they are popular enough to play a 17,000 seat arena in the USA. They certainly have not. I could check on this of course because Amusementbusiness has all the records worldwide for concert stats. If you know of a time and place they did play a US arena please list it. This is not a put down of the band though at all. Just a fact when it comes to talking about business things. Another band I love Big Country had even less success than Midnight Oil in the USA. Midnight Oils situation in Australia may be different. But thats Australia. 98% of the global music market is else where.

 

[Sicy]

I saw them in concert uh.. like 14 years ago.. when they used to be kinda cool.

Is that one dude still bald?

 

[Saracene]

"It is so out of character with their anti-"for love of money, money, money, more money..." "the God I believe in isn't short of cash mister""peeling off those dollar bills.... slapping 'em down". Can you really see U2 writing a song today which critisises love of money. I don't think they could, it would be too hypocritical."

Well, these songs you've mentioned certainly made them a lot of money back in the 80s, so weren't they hypocrites back then, too?

And BTW I've listened to "Capricornia". Very melodic and radio-friendly, no breaking of a new ground or experimenting... in fact one review called it "a sonic patchwork of the Oils' previous albums.

[This message has been edited by Saracene (edited 03-10-2002).]

 

[kobayashi]

times change.

the band has always wanted to be heard.

so they must publicize, they never really did shy away from it.

like it or not, 'U2' is a trademark within a very large organization now.

the men that make up U2 have a responsibility to their record company and (if they choose, and they do so) to us, their fans.

these responsibilities have not, yet(and i see no reason why they presently should in the future) affect the music that the band plays.

bono himself has matured. he once played the role of rock star attempting to incite a revolution, now he is trying to effect very real change(it is very easy to look at this and say he is just trying to sell records, but think what you will). he didn't learn development economics and then talk to us onstage about it to push a single, he did it because he now believes this is how he can best help. like it or not, it's as simple as that.

in my opinion.

 

[AlanPARTRIDGE]

didn't someone describe ATYCLB " a sonic patchwork of their previous albums".

Sicy: do you only like bands that are cool? well that's where we differ.
I have been to a number of message boards like Radiohead, Midnight Oil and REM. You'd be surprised at the number of people who say the exact same thing about U2. "they were kinda cool 14 years ago". But you and I know that age doesn't effect good musos and good song writers.

I think Bono did want to be innovative with ATYCLB, but Edge wouldn't allow it.

Bono: "We can't use that riff, it is too U2" (ie trying once again to reinvent themselves)
Edge: "We are U2"...blah blah blah.

So the production and sound of Stuck In a Moment is just coincedently similar to the stuff that is ruling the charts at the moment with Boy bands etc... (and don't reply saying there are no similarities between Stuck and a Boy band song, because harmonically, melodically, texturally and lyrically they have a number of similarities.)

[This message has been edited by AlanPARTRIDGE (edited 03-10-2002).]

 

[brettig]

I agree Allan, Midnight Oil are great, and im disappointed in the low opinion they seem to hold here...oh well

 

[scatteroflight]

Originally posted by brettig:
I agree Allan, Midnight Oil are great, and im disappointed in the low opinion they seem to hold here...oh well

I agree they're great! I am still mad at myself for not going over to Vancouver to see them when they were there recently...ah, I'm really mad. Apparently they're still a great live band. I should see if I can find that new album! I only have a few of their albums--well, five or six counting the greatest hits--and I definitely like U2 better overall, but Midnight Oil is a wonderful band.



------------------
Your sun so bright it leaves no shadows, only scars
Carved into stone on the face of earth
The moon is up and over One Tree Hill
We see the sun go down in your eyes

 

[Saracene]

Yeah, Capricornia and ATYCLB are kinda similar in that respect. But you're gushing about Capricornia while criticising ATYCLB for it's lack of experimentation and innovation and that doesn't seem fair to me when in fact both albums share the sense of a band drawing on their past works.

And sorry, I see a whole lot of difference between a poignant song like "Stuck" with a real loss behind it and your average boy-band ditty.

 

[zoomerang II]

The oils rock.
They are probably the greatest pub rock band ever,and if anyone has a chance to see them live...do it!

We should be praising them both for being political, singing about what is important and personal, and not afraid to do it on their own terms.

The oils were offered huge sums of money to relocate to America about 10 years ago and they turned it down, preferring to do it their way.

And they love U2 as well.

 

[Saracene]

I think it was in "U2 at the End of the World" where Bono said that Peter Garrett was a great political voice, so I guess that admiration is mutual.

 

[kerc]

Alan, now I'll have to buy their new CD and it's all your fault!

------------------
Atr?eme con tu est?tica
Quiebra mi conciencia
Novato sin pr?ctica
Adicto a tu presencia...

 

[doctorwho]

Originally posted by Saracene:

And sorry, I see a whole lot of difference between a poignant song like "Stuck" with a real loss behind it and your average boy-band ditty.

That's probably why "Stuck..." won the Grammy over those boy-band songs - it was pop, but it also had substance to it. The others were catchy, but meaningless drivel.

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Originally posted by AlanPARTRIDGE:
didn't someone describe ATYCLB " a sonic patchwork of their previous albums".

I agree with this statement though I think "Wild Honey" is really the only song that doesn't really fit this description.

Let me add that U2 has never been against making money IMO, otherwise why tour in arenas? Why sign huge contracts during the age of Achtung/ Zooropa. They have pointed out that they didn't make a lot of money early on until Joshua Tree...




------------------
~ "You can't resist her. She's in your bones. She is your marrow and your ride home. You can't avoid her. She's in the air; in between molecules of oxygen and carbon dioxide." ~ RC

 

[Flying FuManchu]

[AN OPINION follows]
Lyrically:
The Oil's spur people to action and thought more than Bono. Bono takes people to another planet.

Cool...

Musically:
The Oil's are more interesting and better players. Makes for longer term interest. U2 are much simpler musically which appeal to a wider community. which allows their message or lyrics to influence a greater number of people.

I think how U2 arranges music is somewhat complex. U2, lyrically, are not as simple as you make it out to be. Writing a song that does ambiguity, irony, and symbolism well is pretty difficult IMO. Musically, U2 may not be virtuosos but one can make the argument that simplicity not only allows them to reach a wider audience but last longer in the public conscience.



------------------
~ "You can't resist her. She's in your bones. She is your marrow and your ride home. You can't avoid her. She's in the air; in between molecules of oxygen and carbon dioxide." ~ RC

 

[STING2]

Great, another quote taken out of context that you suppose proves every point your attempting to make. Yep, I know the quote. It has to do with Beautiful Day and a guitar part in the song. For your information, every U2 album has parts that may sound similar to other U2 albums. The particular guitar part may sound similar in sound to early stuff, but its not the same. Then its put in the context of a song that has a lot of different stuff going on that you would not find on the first album. So no, that does not support your conclusion.
I'm sorry you fail to notice the beautiful guitar part that Edge has in Stuck In A Moment... and no that is not characteristic of Teen Pop. Like many U2 songs it starts of slow and simple and builds to a grand climax. That is not something you hear in teen pop. The only thing in the song that would resemble teen pop is the refrain which is actually a minor part of the song. But that was inspired a by soul music from the 50s not the teen pop of today. As Edge said " a beautiful rush of Philadelphia soul". So once again, point not proved.
ATYCLB is a great and very original album by U2. The band ventured into area's of music that they had not really pursued before. They did their best to produce the best album possible and have exceeded their expectations. I see no attempt to write something to fit the "times" or to do anything so contrived. Certainly no facts have been given here that can prove otherwise either.

 

[david]

You start a band for all the wrong reasons. - Bono 1993

------------------
The more of these I drink the more Bono makes sense.. - Bean from the KROQ Breakfast with U2.

 

[AlanPARTRIDGE]

STING2: I think you'll find that if you extend that quote, Bono said that the attitude behind that little interchange between Bono and Edge shaped the attitude towards the rest of the album (ie not to be innovative, but to be U2). So, No, the quote was not taken out of context. In fact, it is highly within the context of this little petty argument. This argument has nothing to do with my original point... which is.... um... I forgot. oh yes, it is that U2 sacrificed experimentation, to be popular. And midnight oil are yet to make an album, just to be popular. Sure they're new album is not as innovative as Redneck Wonderland, but it is not mimicking the pop charts at the moment.
AND also. I didn't say that Stuck was a boy band song. I said that there are remarkable similarities between Stuck and boyband songs. Of course they're are differences (such as U2 play and write the song, so its going to have their slant on it) all music is at least slightly different. So No STUCK is not exactly a Boy band song, but it draws on a number of those Pop Boy band sounds. Edge said that in the U2.com quotes that came out with each song snippet in 2000.

FLYING FUMANCHU: I never said U2 were not complex lyrically. I actually believe they are. I said that musically the Oils are more complex and interesting.

I bet if U2 wrote and recorded How Deep Is Your Love (Bee Gees song, covered by Take That)... we would all be saying things like "No but this is not a boy band song, it is is a song that questions. it goes to a deeper level than most boy bands. it is asking how "deep" is your love?" I think we try to find deeper and more profound meanings in simple songs, simply because U2 write them and U2 (to us) are very cool and U2 would never stoop to the simple level of the common mainstream.

 

[Saracene]

How do you actually know that U2 were going to be "innovative" before that Edge thing supposedly changed everything? If you remember, Bono talked a lot about how he was inspired and exhilarated by listening to U2's early catalogue and how he wanted to capture that joy their early music had. That was well before Edge's "fuck off, we're U2" quote, which probably did re-inforce their direction but hardly sent it off along another track altogether.

You don't actually need to go and find any "profound meaning" in "Stuck", because we already know what the song is about. Anyway, I think it's a pretty useless argument to say, well then, would you think the same of this and that song if somebody else has written it, because it would be a completely different song altogether. It's not simply a matter of giving it a "personal slant": the song is not just about the lyrics or the music, it's also about the person or people behind it and what they put into the performance.

 

[u2sangel]

I think Midnight Oil and Peter Garret are GREAT!!!!!!!Unfortunately it seems to be, with the state of music these days,that they canlt get much airplay here in the US (on mainstream radio)Garret is a smart guy and seems to be very concerned about his causes.Bono is too though!

 

[Flying FuManchu]

Originally posted by AlanPARTRIDGE:
FLYING FUMANCHU: I never said U2 were not complex lyrically. I actually believe they are. I said that musically the Oils are more complex and interesting.

I bet if U2 wrote and recorded How Deep Is Your Love (Bee Gees song, covered by Take That)... we would all be saying things like "No but this is not a boy band song, it is is a song that questions. it goes to a deeper level than most boy bands. it is asking how "deep" is your love?" I think we try to find deeper and more profound meanings in simple songs, simply because U2 write them and U2 (to us) are very cool and U2 would never stoop to the simple level of the common mainstream.

My bad, I mis-read what you said. lyrically and musically were pretty close together making it seem like you were saying U2's lyrics weren't complex.

Let me add I like some "boy band crap" and if U2 can make great music inspired by "bad" songs, then all power to them.

------------------
~ "You can't resist her. She's in your bones. She is your marrow and your ride home. You can't avoid her. She's in the air; in between molecules of oxygen and carbon dioxide." ~ RC

 

[Eliv8]

I've heard a lot of good things about Midnight Oil live so I am going to see them on March 20th.

------------------
Imagine
//oo\\
http://eliv8.fws1.com/

 

[MBH]

Mr. Partridge,
With all due respect, do you really think that Midnight Oil is more intense live than U2? I also want to point out that although Bono has been less critical of the US, he has always had a love affair with the US and sometimes criticizes them in public instead of in U2 songs(he did this after the Grammy's, IMO)

I realize that these are all opinions, but U2 has CLEARLY had more of an impact on music over the past 20 years. Just because they are popular, does not mean that they are bad, not innovative or uncreative.

In fact, I feel that U2 succeeded in something that is very difficult with ATYCLB: they made an album that appears to be simple and easy(listening, writing, creating) but yet it is very complex in meaning and continues to grow stronger critically and commercially with time like most great albums do(creatively as well).

IMO that ATYCLB is U2's tightest, most cohesive work since AB. However, I would agree that it certainly is not their most creative, ground-breaking or daring work to date. In fact, it can be said that the public(especially in the US) had too much influence on ATYCLB. Whatever the motivations of the band, only they truly know in their hearts.

Either way, it all comes down to the music. ATYCLB is a great album. Enough Said.

 

[STING2]

Well, if Edge did say he thought STUCK might sound like a boyband song it was more of a joke or a sudden realization. Edge has also stated on MTV that what they have done with this album "DOES NOT FIT THE TIME PERIOD". I have this on video! Edge is of course right and this is part of the reason for the lack of radio airplay that the band has recieved in the USA. Again, Walk On failed to crack the HOT 100 as did Elevation, and Stuck... which you considered a contrived attempt to write a boyband song, only made it to #52! Only Beautiful Day had any meaningful airplay and that peaked at #21!
Do you have a particular song in mind that you think Stuck... sounds like? I certainly can't think of any, and again the only part of the song that one can entertain this absurd notion is the refrain which is a minor part of the whole song. In an over generalized way, you might be able to make and arguement, but look at the point and detail and any arguement the song is through and through boyband inspired falls flat.
The band have never sacrificed experimentation or the normal writing and recording process in order to be popular. They have approached the writing of this album like any other, to write the best songs possible. People unfortunately think that only Achtung,Zooropa, and POP equals experimentation. Another false assumption is this idea that something that is musically simpler is automatically inferior to a more complex recording. Nothing could be further from the truth. The most difficult thing in music is to write something that is simple yet original and have that power running through it. Complexity itself is not really that difficult, having the parts connect in a certain way is. Otherwise you are simply left with bits and pieces of music that are put together, but really don't truly fit.
Midnight Oil is good, but certainly not more complex or interesting than U2. Again this idea that U2 sacrificed experimention to be popular is pure rubbish! Where was the rap/metal song? Or the duet with Britney Spears? How about Joshua Tree II!? The fact is that there are hundreds of things U2 could have done on the album to make a quick buck, but they did not do them.
When you listen to ATYCLB your not listening to mainstream radio by any means. Its like night and day. The band have had to fight tooth and nail to get the songs some radio airplay. Songs from POP recieved just as much or more airplay.
This album is against the grain of mainstream music today as the Edge said! The songs may be lighter in sound and slower in tempo than on other albums, but that does not mean the band has "soldout" as you would suggest.
The band experiment going into every album just as they did for ATYCLB. Only in a very vague way does "Beautiful Day" or its father"Always" sound like U2. BONO has been quoted has saying that this is not a roots record. The fact that you find a small part here or there that sounds like old U2 does not constitute the band attempting to repeat itself to become popular. If so, then POP is guilty as well.
But I guess if they had some loops and computer generated sounds in the background and perhaps or did the same thing on POP or ZOOROPA that would constitute experimentation. But if you put four people in a room, a singer, a drummer, guitar player, bass player, how could that be experimental or innovative? While its certainly not U2s most experimental or innovative, it is certainly one of U2s best albums ever! Probably #3 and if you ask Edge its the second best thing the band has ever done. The quality of the music is amazing, and that will always trump grade B experimentation or innovation which the band dumped this time in favor of the BEST music!
As BONO has said before "their #1 goal is to be the best band in the world, not the most popular". Thats goal #2, because to them, to have the #2 goal with out the #1 goal would be pointless.
So Midnight Oil does not want to be popular. Well then why don't they distrubute their own records out of the back of their cars or at the PUBs they play instead of being signed to Columbia Records! That mega corporation dwarfs in size Island Records or the current interscope. My point is that Midnight Oil play the music business game just as much as U2 does by being with such a large record label. Why do you think Midnight Oil makes video's?
To sum up, you have provided very little evidence to support your opinion that U2 sacrificed experimentation on ATYCLB to be popular. What has been said would not constitute evidence because it has consisted of mainly quotes that are agrueable at best and then rebutted easily by other quotes or info.
A real attempt by U2 to be popular while giving up everything else would be a Joshua Tree II which has certainly not happened here. There has always been someone that has attempted to make the same statement about U2s albums starting with Joshua Tree. Some people are resistent to the idea that great music can actually be popular as well but at the same time different from the mainstream which is what we have with ATYCLB.
Again it appears that you want to paint ATYCLB and the band into this corner of giving up things in order to be popular because the facts you give to support your conclusion are so thin.
ATYCLB is an amazing album and as Rolling Stone Magazine said "A Masterpiece". The band put out an album of material that they new was their best material from the 100 songs they had recorded. Sure the band would like to sell a lot of albums, but if that had been the #1 goal, ATYCLB would not have been released.