Main
The Edge (U2) mentions The Smiths (Guitar World, Jan. 99)
Posted on Thu, Dec 17 1998
by David T. <[email protected]>
From Vijai Prabhudass:

For the rest of the interview go to
http://zoonation.com/webhtml/index2.html

GW: The Joshua Tree sold 15 million albums, making it your most successful album to date. At the time, the critics were divided about its merits. U2 fans would suggest that certain critics would rather champion young and struggling bands than stand behind hugely successful ones.

THE EDGE: We had to endure a certain kind of cynicism that pervaded the media in the U.K. It all started with the punk ethos, which itself had been created by the media. This ethos really influenced everyone's attitude to music, to the extent that, in Britain, if you were successful you were irrelevant immediately. I think our becoming successful in America was, in particular, deemed a cardinal sin by the media in Britain. We had sold out, and as such were beyond respect. That was the way it was. Since we've always perceived ourselves as outsiders, this business didn't bother us, but I think that attitude broke up a lot of really amazing English groups. The only time that they revised this concept was when Oasis came around. That's when the British rock and roll media stopped eating its young, which they had been doing since the late Seventies. The Clash broke up because of this, so did the Smiths, and so did many other talented groups that couldn't deal with the pressure created by the charge that they'd "sold out." It's this zealot mentality which promotes the idea that when something stops being exclusive and underground and starts being popular, it suddenly turns into the enemy. I think it's just bogus, really bogus, andI think many people have actually realized this.


Comments / Notes


Yeah, the Edge is cool and all, but the "Popmart" tour was VERY disappointing (unless they take a few steps back I will never pay to see them again). The Smiths did end too soon, but at least Morrissey hasn't lost his musical integrity like U2 has. I'm not against progression or technology, but U2 doesn't seem to know how to strike that delicate balance. They've gone way overboard. It's much easier to respect bands like R.E.M. who use technology on newer material in a mature, well crafted way to ADD to their music, not take away from it. Oh well, I guess I'm just a very disappointed U2 fan and hate to see one time-respectable bands put out pieces of crap.
matt
- Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 10:07:20 (PST)


Well U2 is definetly hitting a different level.
As good as as the josua Tree?
Better- They have seemed to embrace technology way better than REM.
REM has to their own acknowledgement been a struggling band of late. With a mediocre guitar player. Don't get me wrong, I don't dislike REM,
but if we're talking dissapointment. REM takes the cake.

Popmart was in and of itself a poke at what rock
can be, silly and wayover the top.
They push the limits further than REM has on its last 3 albums.
mozzer
- Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 11:25:10 (PST)


I wonder why Britian changed its attitude for Oasis. What a stoopid time to see the light.

electro-shock blues
- Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 13:00:48 (PST)


Interesting that the type of music that U2 and (to a lesser degree) R.E.M. have recently produced is why Marr left the Smiths to begin with (Electronic, PSB). Furthermore, if people would really sit down and listen to U2's POP and R.E.M.'s UP, you would realize that these are great records. UP may even be one of R.E.M.'s best.
Eric Scharer <[email protected]>
- Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 13:48:34 (PST)


I would say that REM has just put out a great record. REM has always been great, but "UP" is a return to "older" REM because they've cut out being LOUD. This was a smart move for them and for us fans that like the old sound. U2 has put too much electronic into their stuff, but hey, it's Good stuff so who is tto complain? REM knows the limit and in their latest album...they've obeyed it. Morrissey, he is a band man...no electronic for him...PLEASE! (well, maybe just one)
Russ <[email protected]>
PA USA - Thu, Dec 17, 1998 at 22:31:55 (PST)


The band that changed people's attitudes towards success in Britain was "THE STONE ROSES". They made statements like "We want to be bigger than Michael Jackson", and made brilliant music under their own terms. Oasis started their band because of the Roses, and simply took that approach to the limit. Unfortunately, Oasis' music doesn't live up to the attitude. The Roses' music did, but they tragically fell apart. I think the beginning of the Roses reign was the end of Morrissey's, as he was instantly dated.
Happy Again <[email protected]>
- Fri, Dec 18, 1998 at 10:30:31 (PST)


I agree with the statement above regarding the Stone Roses and Oasis. Oasis is very average at best and if it weren't for the fighting antics and the Gallagher brothers posturing around like apes, they would (should) quickly be forgotten. The first Oasis album was pretty good, not it's just very mediocre. Now the Roses were an amazing band and it was obvious since they didn't rely on their rock star images, they simply played awsome songs. And again, as far as true bands that are still somewhat intact, I have to say that REM probably has earned the most respect for putting out albums that are quite different from the mainstream (not that the "mainstream" is bad) and still progressing in musicianship, etc. And why is it that U2's best selling album (Joshua Tree) just happens to be the last one before they vastly changed their sound? I know that time has something to do with it, but you can't help but admit that it displayed the band at their peak (at least their peak thus far). Coincidence? I think not.
matt
- Fri, Dec 18, 1998 at 12:29:43 (PST)


Bands who are great are bands that evolve. After the joshua tree, U2 made their best album so far, and possibly their best ever. Achtung Baby is one of the best records I have ever heard, and it is still a band who can get away with it, proven with the pop mart scam. I really donīn think that Stone Roses or Oasis are proof of anything, and have been bands that get away wiht it....with crap. R.E.M. have made their best yet with up, whereas U2 have passed that point with pop. Look at depecheMODE, for example, their need for change was contraire to what is happening and have included more instruments to their sound, still making great music. It is not what you do it with, it is how you do it. And if it has to be done greatly for a short while, like the smiths. So be it
enrique <[email protected]>
- Sun, Dec 20, 1998 at 22:08:00 (PST)


I can't believe it! I just can't! He didn't really say "bogus", did he? Really?


jeane
- Mon, Dec 21, 1998 at 22:39:08 (PST)


come on people i cant believe you ignore what oasis has made. they brought brit pop alive again. what would brit pop be now without them? blur? this is the 90's and going to an new millenium so please stop whining about old things. Morrissey is probably my favorite artist in the world but oasis brings life and cheer to us who like it, something that morrissey will never do. i dont want to start a discussion here, i just want to give credit where it's due and oasis has done a lot for brit pop like it or not.
Acquiesce
miami,fl - Tue, Dec 22, 1998 at 12:58:26 (PST)


blur has done more for music than oasis, in five albums they have expanded their sound, and made amazing music, and every album has something new to offer.
In the same spirit not to start a discussion, but to make people realize, oasis are nothing but jocks without an original thought
enrique <[email protected]>
- Tue, Dec 22, 1998 at 21:29:46 (PST)


Hey enrique, remember we were talking about the brittish influence in america. If you didnt know oasis has the highest entry position of a british band into the US charts ever(higher than the beatles, and edwin Collins). Oasis was in #21 while Blur was in #126(do yer homework little boy) Oasis have sold many many more albums from (What's the story) than all of the 5 blur albums combined. now if you like blur it's ok, personaly I think it's crap but that's for another site other than Morrissey's.
Acquiesce
miami - Mon, Dec 28, 1998 at 09:42:51 (PST)


acquiesce, dont dare to be so condescending; after all, *you* are measuring the merits of bands via record sales.

careless & off the mark.
gout <[email protected]>
nyc - Tue, Jan 19, 1999 at 22:29:02 (PST)


Here are the simple facts-U2 sold out after achtung baby (you will never see Moz promoting a tour in Kmart) and R.E.M. sold out the minute Michael Stipe went bald. Oasis is a great band, but I think we should all recognize the work of the most under rated band of all time-INXS. Their music is/was (Elegantly Wasted-1997) unique to alternative music. Unfortunately in this day of rap, music such as INXS and Moz get pushed aside. As Michael Hutchence once said-Any band that judges their success on record sales, shouldn't be a band in the first place.
Michael Hutchence <[email protected]>
Mt. Pleasant, Michigan, USA - Sat, Jan 23, 1999 at 11:03:34 (PST)



* return to Morrissey-solo