GEN
Active topics
  2. Rant incoming:

    I always find it funny when I read people's posts about how they somehow know for certain that U2 - arguably one of the only musical artists in the world who probably get zero input from their label when making an album - are writing and releasing music "to be relevant".

    Let's unpack that a bit. Saying "U2 need to stop worrying about being relevant and need to go experimental again" implies a few things.

    Firstly, it would imply that the music U2 is releasing has been made specifically for the purpose of leading the charts. Secondly, adding the "they should go experimental again" implies that this isn't actually the music U2 wants to be writing deep down, and that everyone somehow knows for sure that they really want to experiment but are too tied up in writing "relevant" music. It also implies that nothing U2 has done lately (let's say since Pop) has been experimental.

    Finally, it implies that U2 never used to worry about "being relevant", and that this only really started once they stopped experimenting - and for that purpose alone. People assume that Pop scared U2 into going back to basics, specifically for the purpose of "being relevant" again.

    This is some dumb shit, and here's why:

    Based on the fact that we can assume (probably quite knowingly) that no one is telling U2 what music they should be putting out, U2 is making that decision entirely on their own. They're the ones writing these songs, making sure they're radio-length, making sure they're not too out-there and that they'll fit the radio stations they belong on, etc. Now that we've established that U2 is in control here, we can only assume that this is what they want to be doing. I'm not only assuming this, they've said as much. I believe it was in a Dutch, pre-SoE interview (or perhaps a different one...) that they said for SoE, they specifically focused on being LESS experimental, and wanted to write songs that could be played on an acoustic guitar for years and years to come. They focused on writing good songs, not so much the makeup around them. This further establishes that U2 aren't writing music specifically to be relevant, they're writing the music they want to write - and that music just so happens to not be the experiential music that so many U2 fans want (and think U2 secretly want to be writing).

    The next point I want to make, is that U2 was always worried about being relevant. Always. Let's trace their history back to the first time they went into an album cycle SPECIFICALLY hoping to experiment and releasing something never heard before - and that's obviously, Unforgettable Fire. If you read U2byU2, they tell about how towards the end of those sessions, U2 brought in Steve Lillywhite (known for being a hit-making producer at the time) SPECIFICALLY for the purpose of making sure they weren't throwing their careers away with the experimental album, and his response to them was "as long as you have Pride, you'll be okay". What was their biggest hit from that album? Pride. That's so damn close to what happened with No Line, except the main differences are that with NLOTH they put a BUNCH of "Pride-attempts" on it, they were all shit - and U2 was already world-famous U2 by then. There was no risk with NLOTH like there was with UF.

    I'd argue that U2's experimentation was always a double-edged sword. The one side being about the artistry of it, and the other side being about standing out as a musical act in the sea of popular bands at the time. Sure, I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For is a gospel tune that came out as hair metal was stepping up to the plate, etc. - but it was also a song that they were very sure would be a pop hit, so much so that they showed it to everyone who visited the studio at the time to show them how they had something special on their hands. Take With or Without You into consideration. yes Edge's guitar part is experimental and different, but that's pretty much it. The song was a hit waiting to happen - and you can argue all day that U2 didn't write that song specifically to be a hit, but I'd argue that it was written both to be a quality U2 song that they could stand behind, AND to be a hit - it's what they wanted at the time.

    I'd say that line of thinking followed them into the 90s. They didn't make Achtung Baby as a "volunteered experiment", they made it as a response to the critical response of Rattle and Hum and the Lovetown tour. They KNEW they needed to do something different to stay relevant, otherwise they'd be swallowed up in the end of the 80s like so many other bands. So many critics were saying "U2 is a spent creative force" - THAT'S why they went into Achtung Baby ready to "chop down the Joshua Tree". Yes, they made a record they were proud of artistically, and Larry says in U2byU2 that he was proud to live and die by that record even if it meant the end of U2's career - but to argue that they only experimented and wrote that record for the artistry and not to "fuck up the mainstream" is delusional.

    I'd say Passengers was maybe their ONLY album that was made specifically for the purpose of being experimental and exploring music. They've said as much, and the fact that they released it under a pseudonym shows you that they were scared they'd alienate fans by making them think "this is the next U2 album" (they've also actually confirmed that was the reason). Pop followed the same line of thinking as Unforgettable Fire and Achtung Baby did - they wanted to use the available technology to make a standout record, and it just didn't work that time. Zooropa was experimental, sure - but it also came out RIGHT after Achtung Baby (still relevant at the time), and while the ZooTV campaign was still in full-force. It didn't matter if Zooropa was experiential or not, because it just a part of the train that was already full-steam ahead.

    Finally, I want to touch on my above point that people tend to imply U2 haven't been experimental since Pop. They sure as hell haven't been AS experimental, but I'd say their mission statement hasn't really changed at all from what it was at the beginning of their careers - apart from the fact that they've already "made it". They've always wanted to be #1, and that continues - but these days they're more focused on writing good songs than having those songs be good because of how they sound.

    Not only that, but it's disingenuous to me to say that they haven't experimented at all. Elevation is no different from Mysterious Ways in its level of experimentation. The song is led by a weird ass guitar effect provided by Edge - MW just happens to be a way better song lol. But for the sake of argument, here's a list of songs I'd argue are just as experimental as anything else they did at the peak of their experimentation:

    -Moment of Surrender
    -Unknown Caller
    -Fez-Being Born
    -White as Snow
    -Cedars of Lebanon
    -Raised by Wolves
    -Sleep like a Baby Tonight
    -Love is All We Have Left
    -Lights of Home (outro)
    -Book of Your Heart

    And there's more. Just because they're not sonically experimental doesn't mean they're not experimental in terms of the song writing or the tone of the music. Maybe they're not breaking new ground like U2 once did - but has anyone thought of the fact that doing that is near impossible these days? Soundwaves can only be manipulated in so many ways, and there's already SO much music out there. For someone to come out with out with something that's never been heard before - that'd be a fucking miracle in 2019. Name me a record that came out this year with music that's completely new and I'll cede this argument.

    My ultimate point is that people should stop assuming that U2 isn't putting the music out that they want to be putting out. U2 isn't just releasing music that's written to stay relevant, they're doing what they WANT to be doing - even if that can be characterized as specifically that. You might want them to release Passengers 2, but if they wanted to do that, they could've done it a long time ago - there's literally nothing stopping them lol. If nothing else, you’re really just asking them to put out music they don’t want to be putting out. You’re asking for the artist to compromise under the pressure of their fan base, and that’s a far worse crime to me than U2 not experimenting as much as you’ve wanted them to.
  5. Huh, I've never seen this and I do believe you're right. This part is pretty damn telling:

    KOT: It sounds like "Pop" didn't work for you because it didn't sell. To my mind, it worked because it was a good, daring album. There's no shame in not selling.

    BONO: It didn't communicate the way it was intended to. It was supposed to change the mood of that summer [1997]. An album changes the mood of a summer when you walk out of a pub and you have those songs in your head. And you hear them coming from a car, an open window. It changes the mood of the season. Instead it became a niche record. And I know you're a man who appreciates the niche. And I'm glad you appreciate that one, but that's not what it was intended to be. It's not about sales; we don't need the cash. It's about your ambition for the song. With "Pop," I always think if we'd just had another month, we could have finished it. But we did a really bad thing. We let the manager book the tour, known in this camp as the worst decision U2 ever made, and we had to wrap up the album sooner than we wanted. You don't need an album to communicate for you to enjoy it, you don't need it to be trimmed of fat to enjoy it, because you're enjoying the ideas, the textures. But for me to enjoy it, I need it to do that [communicate on a wider level].
  6. It’s a crazy coincidence that I was checking out u2 interviews from the HTDAAB era just typing in ‘bono 2005 interview’ only yesterday and when I seen your post that bit you’ve highlighted just sprung to mind straight away.
  7. Ah! @RattleandHum1988 speaks the truth, as is often the case... Alex, THANK YOU for articulating this point so well and so thoroughly!! It’s something that often enters my head and you completely contextualise the “U2 need and want to be more experimental and not putting out this poppy crap” mindset. I can totally get wanting them to do stuff like their 90s records - and heck, it’d be cool to hear - but to say that they’re not making the records they want to or aren’t trying to push their own envelope musically or lyrically puts me ill at ease.
  8. And on this note... there’s quite a few lyrics from the last two records that have made me raise my eyebrows. “That’s a U2 line??” I don’t know, I think a lot of Bono’s songwriting has been surprisingly bare and emotionally frank on these last two albums. A lot of the songs may not be “experimental” in sound (though I’d argue they aren’t all as plain-Jane bog-standard as a lot of people seem to think) but the words are often barer and sharper emotionally than I’d expect based on U2’s often-obtuse or imprecise lyricism.
  9. Originally posted by deanallison:It’s a crazy coincidence that I was checking out u2 interviews from the HTDAAB era just typing in ‘bono 2005 interview’ only yesterday and when I seen your post that bit you’ve highlighted just sprung to mind straight away.
    That IS a crazy coincidence, thanks for posting it! I don't think I've ever seen an interview where Bono was so frank about this very subject, and asked specifically about Pop and all that.

    Originally posted by CMIPalaeo:Ah! @RattleandHum1988 speaks the truth, as is often the case... Alex, THANK YOU for articulating this point so well and so thoroughly!! It’s something that often enters my head and you completely contextualise the “U2 need and want to be more experimental and not putting out this poppy crap” mindset. I can totally get wanting them to do stuff like their 90s records - and heck, it’d be cool to hear - but to say that they’re not making the records they want to or aren’t trying to push their own envelope musically or lyrically puts me ill at ease.

    Originally posted by CMIPalaeo:And on this note... there’s quite a few lyrics from the last two records that have made me raise my eyebrows. “That’s a U2 line??” I don’t know, I think a lot of Bono’s songwriting has been surprisingly bare and emotionally frank on these last two albums. A lot of the songs may not be “experimental” in sound (though I’d argue they aren’t all as plain-Jane bog-standard as a lot of people seem to think) but the words are often barer and sharper emotionally than I’d expect based on U2’s often-obtuse or imprecise lyricism.


    Thanks, man! Couldn't agree more, about everything you said - particularly what you said in your second post. The opening lines of Lights of Home will always raise the hairs on my neck. Who ever thought Bono would say "shouldn't be here cos' I should be dead.....oh Jesus if I'm still your friend, what the hell have you got for me?" That alone is just...whoa. Sure we've had Bono question his faith in lyric before, even question "God" - but to be almost antagonistic like that? G'damn. It's not just that song either - SO many of their songs have had lyrics like that - just as you said. And true about the music, too. Show me another song that sounds like Raised By Wolves, or Cedars of Lebanon.
  10. Of course they write and release songs they want to. And they're proud of the songs. In 2017 & 2018 the only SOE song they did not play is The Showman. (I still remember Noel saying it was epic! It's an enjoyable tune, but I believe Noel must have heard an electric, raw version, because the album version we did get to hear isn't that epic) They believe in the new songs, in the material they put out. Bono & Edge both said if SOE was their last album, they're fine with that, because they are proud of all the songs in it. I just feel that they over-produce the songs too much.
  11. I also remember at the end of ei tour in a U2 subscriber's special video, Bono saying he's excited about the sound the band's making on the e-stage, he talks about punk, visceral energy and how the band is the best they've ever been. He also mentions he'd like to make a balls to the wall rock album. The article that comes with the video ends like that: The lightbulb, he reflects, is 'associated with ideas and possibility' and this tour has been giving him some ideas for that next record..
  12. This remains utterly outrageously spectacular.