The reason why Bono called U2 the opposite of The Clash
This headline is going to be absolute catnip to a certain brand of rock fan.
In fact, there will be very few fans of rock ‘n’ roll who will look at this headline and see anything other than the lead singer of U2 pasting an extremely large “kick me” sign on his back and an arrow gesturing towards his posterior. The frontman of, let’s be real here, one of the least respected rock bands alive, is directly comparing said band to The Clash, one of, if not arguably the most respected rock band to ever live. In fairness to the lad, he ain’t wrong.
The downside of this all is that there’s a decent chance that all that derisive laughter might actually sting the U2 frontman, which may sound ridiculous. The man has a badonk-alonk zillion dollars, and his band has been the biggest in the world at least three times, which is an incredible achievement. One would imagine that insulates a man against snarky keyboard warriors like me. However, Bono has never been a man content with being loved by ‘some’ of the world. Even when that some consists of a pretty large portion of it.
No, he’s an all-or-nothing kind of a guy, and the truth of the matter is, he learned that from The Clash. U2 have said multiple times that their North star were punk bands of the 1970s, with two of their major influences being Joe Strummer’s mob and The Ramones. If anything, their attitude and ambition were shaped by The Clash more than any other band. This may sound like a profound burn on The Clash but hear me out here.
The Clash weren’t dubbed ‘The Only Band That Matters’; they called themselves that. Their ambition was far, far beyond anything else the London punk scene was producing. If they could be the biggest band in the world while sticking to their principles, then they absolutely would take that opportunity. Which is an admirable attitude, I think. What use is a message if you’re too insular to take it to the masses? Which is where U2 steps in.
What set U2 and The Clash apart?
The most likely answer to the question above is, “everything, obviously”, but to me, the two bands are more alike than one would think. Not only because U2 are Clash fanboys and have been from the very beginning. However, very early on in the band’s mainstream breakthrough, Bono seemed determined to distance himself from the work of his heroes, as he shows in an interview he gave prior to the release of The Unforgettable Fire.
He begins with an absolute clanger of a statement to today’s ears. “People say that a U2 concert and a Clash concert are similar in terms of reaction”. Fucking do they now, Paul?! “But I think they’re worlds apart”. This sounds like typical Bono self-aggrandising, but it’s worth mentioning that U2 concerts around the time were not the stadium spectaculars they are today. They’d graduated to arenas, but they were still intense, political affairs that often saw Bono take to the stage holding a white flag of surrender.
He talks about concerts by other bands as places of tension. The Clash are used as an example of a pretty broad statement, but one can’t deny he has a point. Punk gigs were rarely places of togetherness and unity, which is exactly what U2 are looking for at their shows, as Bono goes on to say, “I really believe that rock ‘n roll is very powerful. There’s unity for an hour and a half, musicians can do what politicians can’t do, and I think those feelings, those communal feelings, are quite addictive. You feel that warmth, and you go after it. Rock ‘n roll should be a release.”
Look, a lot of what Bono does is laughable. I’m a U2 apologist and even I think that. While anyone directly comparing their live shows to The literal Clash isn’t a great place to start, I do think he has a point. U2 concerts are all about unifying the audience. Love ’em or loathe ’em, they’re still doing that to this day, and you can’t argue with that.
