The problem with U2 is that Bono is an insufferable, self-important blowhard.
Or that’s what most people think the problem is, anyway.
On a recent summer night in St. Louis, where U2 was playing in front of 50,000 people in a baseball stadium, the time-worn criticisms of Bono seemed appropriate. The massive screens that the band would eventually use to bombard the audience with images of itself alongside varied cartoons, videos, and messages from space stations were also used, before the show, to bombard the audience with depressing facts about human consumption.
Add to this the usual early-, mid-, and late-show calls to arms in the name of peace, love and cures for the High-Five, and eyes were rolling harder than the University of Alabama in a late-seventies Sugar Bowl.
But Bono’s insufferableness is forgivable. Lead singers are egotistical anyway; tell a man that he’s at the front of the biggest band in the world and it’s only natural that he will begin to think that he is the biggest man in the world.
Further than forgivable: Bono The Human has surely done plenty of good for the world. My beef with Bono’s transition from diplomatic rock star to rock star diplomat isn’t with his god complex. My concern is musical. Someone else could have done all the missionary work in Africa.
Bono could have concentrated on making U2 what it could have been: so much better than they are.
My love affair with U2 started on the bus to school in seventh grade, when I heard “Mysterious Ways” for the first time. I became a fan retroactively; after buying Achtung Baby, I found out that Joshua Tree had ALL THESE SONGS I LIKE, MOM! and added it to my Columbia House queue. Then came Boy and War and The Unforgettable Fire and Rattle And Hum. Eventually, I even dipped into October, that mostly-impenetrable mess that die-hards claim to love.
When Zooropa came out in July of 1993, I was one month from starting tenth grade and had just moved into the basement of my family’s house in rural Kansas. I was terrified of both transitions; I was leaving my brothers upstairs…and in middle school – the oldest son sent out to conquer the world. (Or so I felt at the time.)
Zooropa served as the soundtrack to my transition from little boy to teenager. I listened to it over and over in that basement bedroom as I wondered why Girl X didn’t like me or why being good at math wasn’t considered a boon to my social standing.
Back then, my dedication to U2 made me an oddity among friends who were expressing their teen angst by listening to Rage Against The Machine and Alice In Chains. And even though U2 was getting steadily weirder in the 90s, they were still associated more with their Joshua Tree and Rattle & Hum days. As in, with the overwrought pop/rock of the early eighties. As in, not cool anymore. But I had a sense that something was going on with this band that had caused me to push all my chips into the middle on its behalf.
What was going on was that U2 was getting good. Not good in the “With Or Without You” sense. Good in the “pushing the envelope, ahead of their time” sense. I felt like I had discovered a dance partner of hidden beauty – like the girl in that one (every) high school movie: she’s got glasses and her hair up but really she’s Lindsay Lohan in disguise. Everyone thought U2 was one thing while, in reality, they were another thing entirely.
Our dance lasted long into the night, through the release of Pop, during my freshman year of college, and into my first U2 concert, two months later.
That first U2 show – U2’s fifth on the PopMart Tour – was like nothing I’d ever seen, in large part because I hadn’t seen many concerts. I watched the show alone; my friend Jeff, who had called me nine months prior to ask if I could afford the $55 ticket, had bailed thanks to his sister’s eighth-grade promotion and when I tromped onto the field to meet the friends of his that were supposed to be waiting at our seats, I learned that those seats had been moved. Because this was pre-cell phone, I had no way to contact Jeff’s friends, so I exchanged my ticket for a new one and watched the show next to three very drunk Irishmen who danced along with every song.
For U2 and me, that was the high point.
At the time, I was sure that my dedication to my underappreciated musical sweetheart was going to pay dividends. After all, U2 had committed to three albums that had gotten successively stranger; surely they wouldn’t turn their backs on what was making them great.
My faith was misplaced; my girl got popular and, unlike the movie, left me standing by the punch bowl.
Sometime before the release of All That You Can’t Leave Behind, I read an interview with Bono in which he billed U2’s latest album as a return to the band’s roots. My antennae sprung into action. My suspicion was well-placed: ATYCLB was mostly adult-contemporary trash – more Train than U2 – made even worse when that album was co-opted as some sort of soundtrack to healing from September 11.
U2 had returned to being the biggest band in the world. But they had forgotten about being any good.
In St. Louis, U2 opened the show with four songs from Achtung Baby. All four nearly brought me to tears, for all the reasons that nostalgia for our teen years does: I thought back to how I was then, how I am now, and how similar those two really are.
But then, quicker than The Edge’s fingers on the frets of that guitar he plays so well, it was over. The band launched into the real concert – the Vertigos and Beautiful Days and the songs I don’t even know because they’re from the band’s latest crap albums.
And, okay, they played “Sunday Bloody Sunday” and “Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me.” And the intro to “Where The Streets Have No Name” gave me chills, just like it was supposed to. But I wanted Bono to turn those songs into a medley and say, “We’re actually quite aware that the best music we ever made was in the years that we got weird, so we’re going to play some of those songs.” And then he would launch into “Wake Up, Dead Man” or “Daddy’s Going To Pay For Your Crashed Car” or “Zoo Station.”
That wasn’t going to happen. The People don’t want weird. Or at least, they think they don’t. The problem with what they think is that they’re wrong. We think we want bands to stay the same; we assume we want The Strokes to make the same album, over and over. But what we really want bands to move forward. There is no going backward; there’s no such thing as “returning to our roots.”
U2 could only make the songs that people now love (here I’m thinking of “Sunday Bloody Sunday” and “I Still Haven’t Found What I’m Looking For” and the like) because they were different. It’s true that those songs now sound conventional, but that’s only in retrospect. The hummingbird shit that U2 is releasing now already sounds conventional. They wouldn’t be a band that can sell out a baseball stadium if their best song was “Vertigo;” people only accept “Vertigo” because it reminds them of the songs they liked, all those years ago, when U2 was being weird.
As I stood on the infield at Busch Stadium, I couldn’t help but feel heartbroken for the lost potential. U2 isn’t that old, really – at least not in this day and age. Bono looked about the same as he did in 1997 and nothing would have stopped U2 from being a latter-day Radiohead, if they had wanted it. (If you think this an extravagant claim, take your hand out of Thom Yorke’s pants and have a listen to “Some Days Are Better Than Others”.)
But it’s probably too late for that. U2’s career trajectory is to surf its fame all the way into the beach. There will be another couple of stadium tours along the way. And Bono will keep trying to cure AIDS in Africa, slash, save political prisoners in Burma, slash, make people feel bad about the Chevy Tahoes they drove to his concerts.
Then, it will be over. And when it is, people will be left to put U2 in its historical place. There will be those who think of them as a decent Irish rock band who put together some hits in the eighties. And, unfortunately, there will be those who think of them as old men who put out bloated pop songs late in their career.
And then there will be the people like me – people who will be left to wonder what might have been, if only the Biggest Band In The World had decided to become the Best Band In The World.
For more from Paul…
Past work on FlipCollective.com.
To follow him on Twitter.
To befriend him on Facebook.
To send him an email.

I like to play ‘Stay (Faraway, so close)’ and others from Zooropa to U2 fans who only know/like their new stuff (unfortunately there are a bunch of them). It’s so cute to see how confused they get…
“But I’ve never heard that one on the radio before…how is this possible?…”
The problem with Flipcollective is that Paul is an insufferable, self-important blowhard.
Or that’s what most people think the problem is, anyway.
FTFY
“Someone else could have done all the missionary work in Africa.”
this seems like a throwaway line–doesn’t add much to his point. but paul’s aversion to altruism is a feature, not a bug. its funny how it continually manifests itself.
dear paul…while your observations about the (musical) decline of U2 are certainly not wrong, you seem to be clueless on the why this has happened, why they made this my belief conscious decision to become that imitation of a band. the answer is real simple though: THEY JUST WANTED TO BE MORE POPULAR IN THE US OF A…they just took a page from the “Rolling Stones (band not mag) Guide on How to ruin a great band” and started writing their songs to new jersey soccer moms and the rest of the musically impaired country. being big in america, has almost never worked for european bands. creatively that is.
good thing that arcade fire (yes i know they arent from europe, but they might as well) only write songs about the suburbs and not for them.
I don’t necessarily agree with the argument here for a few reasons:
1) There is no historical precedence of bands selling out stadiums for 20+ years maintaining that musical cutting edge that made them so good in the beginning. If the radio played Mars Volta song after Mars Volta song for 30 straight years, we’ll eventually accuse Mars Volta of not taking risks like they used to even though their latest records sound like they are just strumming guitar strings with a heroin needle. Can you honestly name a band where all of the members are ~50 years old making the best music of their careers? This isn’t a challenge… more a question. I can’t think of any.
2) To me, the hard thing in music is trying to figure out that balance between critical success and mass appeal. Pinkerton is a better album than the Blue Album, but how is Weezer supposed to measure that? It didn’t sell as well and less people came to their shows. They then came back with a so-so poppy third album and the fans are right back on board. Imagine if you take that same analogy and apply it to sports. Your playing for my beloved Timberwolves. You come off a great season in which you averaged 20 points per game and the team won 55 games. You come into the next season having the same players/coaches around you, yet you only average 12 points a game and the team barely sneaks into the playoffs and gets swept in the first round. It would be hard to convince you that you played better in season two than in season one, wouldn’t it? I mean think about U2. They went from selling 23 million in the USA over a three album span two selling 2 million copies of Zooropa and 1 million copies of Pop. I just think it’d be hard to convince anyone in any band (besides Eddie Vedder) “Hey! You’re on the right career path.”
3) And I think this is the biggest one. I think U2 has always been a better live act than a recorded one. Look at the Zoo TV tour… it’s crazy that what they were doing 20 years ago still is better than what 99% of mainstream bands are doing live right now. They’ve changed musically… that’s obvious. I think their last cd was an attempt to right that a little bit. The songs are pretty good and then the chorus for just about every song hits and… nothing. No Line on the Horizon and Breathe are both good songs live (they didn’t play em this tour) but both have a real “meh” hook. The cd had potential to be really solid, but it just falls a little short.
Their entering their 4th decade of being relevant. Here’s a list of the top 20 selling artists of 1983 – tell me if U2 wound up in a better place than everyone else who’s either dead, broken up, or doing the casino tour:
The Police
Lionel Richie
Def Leppard
Stevie Ray Vaughan & Double Trouble
ZZ Top
U2
R.E.M.
Cyndi Lauper
John Cafferty & The Beaver Brown Band
Joan Jett & The Blackhearts
Big Country
Culture Club
Bob Seger
Christopher Cross
Loverboy
Vandenberg
Eddy Grant
Kenny Rogers
Todd Rundgren
Electric Light Orchestra
Praggy,
I think blowing anything hard makes the front of your slacks a little bit tighter.
That’s weak. Even for you. Buck up little camper. It gets better
Encouragement/life advice from you is like parenting advice from Casey Anthony or relationship tips from OJ.
Your miserable existence and pathetic life fuel my happiness.
Aim high! If your projections of my perceived miserableness/patheticness are all there is then you may be too emo to live.
I completely disagree. I attended their concert in Pittsburgh and there is no other band that could possibly ever do a show like that. Their music has changed, but so have the times. It’s still all good.
It’s rather disturbing/interesting that you feel that way, Paul. But I’ll cut to the chase: read “I Was Bono’s Doppelganger” by Neil McCormick. It’ll remind you of your own miserable career while giving you the insight on Bono that you seem to lack. Cheers!