U2: The Definitive Biography

by John Jobling

John Jobling takes readers beyond the myth in this unauthorized biography of U2 to present the first comprehensive account of the illustrious Irish rockers in 25 years.

Drawing on extensive interviews with insiders including record label scouts, studio presidents, politicians, music critics, and childhood friends, Jobling investigates the U2's most personal relationships and controversial business practices, delivering a vivid portrait that traces the rock phenomenon from its conception to post-punk champions to political crusaders. Filled with captivating revelations, reader will

- How Bono, the Edge, and Larry Mullen, Jr. worshiped with a Charismatic Christian church that practiced speaking in tongues during the band's early days

- Insider stories of the genesis and recording of classic albums such as The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby

- Creative tensions within the band and power struggles among management

- How the disappointments of the Rattle and Hum film and PopMart Tour spurred the band to greater creative heights

- Both the successes and controversies of Bono's wide-sweeping philanthropic and political ventures

- The disconnect between the band's personal lives and public personas

Sure to inspire debate with every music lover, The Definitive Biography humanizes the band and paints an honest picture of a band's rise to the top, plunging into the heart and underlying soul of this iconic rock and roll band.

Genres: Music, Biography, Nonfiction

400 pages, Paperback

First published October 29, 2013

Reviews

[Nikki Stafford · Rating 2 out of 5]

In 1988, I read a biography of U2 by Eamonn Dunphy that I thought was pretty amazing. I was 15 and completely in love with the band, and this biography (which was authorized) allowed us into the childhood homes, introduced me to the Virgin Prunes and Gavin Friday, both for whom I now have boundless love, and carried us through to the Joshua Tree years. And then I didn't read another biography. Late last year when it was revealed the topless man Larry is embracing on the cover of the new album was actually his 18-year-old son Elvis, I immediately thought, Holy crap, Larry has a kid? And he's 18?! (Turns out, he has THREE.) And that thought was followed by: I really need to find an updated biography of U2. And then, like magic, this book was released only days later.

I bought it earlier this month, and immediately began reading it. And it begins with a dull, lifeless introduction that it was clear some editor at St. Martin's asked for, wherein the author lays out the book like he's opening some academic thesis, along the lines of In this book I will endeavour to do _____, and then will move into ______, and finish with _______, and will conclude that_______.

If I hadn't actually bought the book, I might have stopped reading right there. But instead I kept going. The early years are mostly glossed over — read Neil McCormick's "I Was Bono's Doppelgänger" for a much better account of those years, and I still recommend Dunphy's book for the early years and discussion of Lipton Village. And I bristled when he misused the word "literally" more than once, as in, "they literally blew the roof off the place." No, no they didn't. Interestingly, even the interview subjects misuse the word, which made me start to suspect that perhaps these transcriptions weren't 100% accurate.

And then it started to get better. For about a minute. I've never quite understood the Goodreads function of allowing readers to comment on a book as they're reading it, until now. My perceptions of this book changed, and it was one-star, three-stars, two-stars, and no-stars depending on where I was in the book. The best part of the book is where he has an extended explanation of LiveAid and BandAid, Bob Geldof's efforts to raise money for the starving children of Ethiopia. Jobling breaks down what actually happened with the aid relief, and how the NGOs took that money over there, which then allowed the government to use it to relocate people to deserted, infertile areas, essentially making the famine last a decade longer than it would have without any aid. According to the author, when told of this, Geldof and Bono reacted with little more than a shrug.

And therein lies the overarching theme of the book: Bono is a dick, U2 is a corporation of greed, and they're all hypocrites. No matter what Bono does in his life, Jobling never commends him, never says, "Hey, when he did this one thing, that was a good thing." There's always an ulterior motive to Bono's actions, or him being an ass, or showing his hypocrisy. Because, unlike Dunphy, he's having to describe almost 40 years of the band, rather than the 12 or so that Dunphy covered, he had to gloss over a lot. And in the end, much of the book is rather boring, because if there's one place you can crucify Bono, it's in his humanitarian efforts and Jobling decides to stop talking about U2 for several dozen pages and just focus on the political side of Bono's humanitarian work. Bono is portrayed as a man in over his head, of being a condescending jerk to heads of state, of walking into boardrooms like he owns the place and espousing a bunch of nonsense that even he doesn't understand.

I mean, I know the book is mistitled "U2: The Definitive Biography," but why would that force Jobling to actually make it about, you know, U2?! The band is shunted off to the side around the time of the Joshua Tree tour, and from that point on all it is is a document of their foibles and fuck-ups. Don't read this if you don't want to know that Bono is very unfaithful to his wife. Or that Larry is an incompetent drummer who, for the past couple of years, has been forming an exit plan and is about to leave the band RIGHT NOW (the band's new tour was announced shortly after the book came out). Or if you don't want to know that Larry and Bono apparently despise each other and spend their time in the nude backstage beating each other up on the shower floor while a naked Edge and Adam try to tear them apart in some weird homoerotic "you have got to be kidding me" scene that seemed to have come out of thin air.

Oh wait, no it didn't, it came from John Jobling's key source, the woman who provides most of the gossip (for yes, that's all this book turns into at the halfway point): Lola Cashman. Now, I didn't know who she was, and in a turn of irresponsible journalism, Jobling doesn't actually reveal who she is until the end of the book, but if you haven't read it, let me tell you now: she was their stylist for the Joshua Tree tour. That much is clear. What he doesn't tell you is that she was embroiled in an angry defamation lawsuit in 2005 with the band and ended up destitute and unemployable as a result.

Yeah. SHE is a worthy, reliable source of intel with absolutely no bones to pick. So this woman — let me remind you, she is the STYLIST of the band — is somehow present at every juncture of the Joshua Tree tour, happens to be IN the showers with the guys while they nakedly roll around on the floor (what the HELL was she doing there?), and was Bono's most trusted confidante. He told her absolutely everything, and she, being an upstanding, all-round good friend, went and wrote a tell-all bio about the band that smeared their reputations and made them very angry. And yet, she blamed the fact that no one would employ her afterwards on Bono defaming her and saying she stole items of clothing, rather than the real reason, which is NO ONE WILL HIRE SOMEONE WHO WILL SPILL ALL THEIR SECRETS.

Now, if Jobling were actually a competent writer or in any way a real journalist, he would know that you should take sources like this with a grain of salt. Instead, he eagerly met with her several times, it would appear, and wrote down everything, saying to himself, Yes, I know she's an angry person hellbent on revenge against the band that she believes destroyed her, but I WILL PRINT ALL HER WORDS AS FACT.

Just look at the back flap of the cover and read his bio to see just how inexperienced a guy this is. He lists as his credits three trade magazines you've never heard of.

Here's the thing: I adored U2 in my youth, and then I loved them, and then I thought they were fine. I don't think their current music lives up to who they once were, but hey, in their mid-20s they wrote one of the greatest albums of all time, and are now the biggest touring band in the world, whether you like their albums or not. They put on an amazing live show, and sure, Bono makes huge missteps all the time in his humanitarian work, but at least he's attempting to use his celebrity for good. There's a lot to be critical of. I was pissed off when I saw them three nights in a row on the Elevation tour, only for Bono to say EXACTLY the same thing during his sermons like they were prepared speeches, and to listen to him yammer on about how we need to get our governments to drop the debt for other nations, after I'd just kicked out $200 per ticket, times three nights. I remember thinking, "Or hey, guys, what about this: you keep $100 of each ticket — which is still exorbitant — and you give the other $100 to a fund to drop the debt of developing nations." And then after telling every country to tax its citizens higher to afford to drop the debt, the band moved their money to an offshore account to avoid paying taxes. If that isn't the lousiest thing the band has done, I don't know what is.

So of course U2 is not above reproach. But when Jobling attacks absolutely everything they do — including, no joke, what underwear they wear — the real problems begin to pale in comparison and the whole book looks like a smear campaign.

I'm not giving this book two stars because I'm a massive U2 fan who thinks he did the band a disservice. I'm giving it two stars because I think most of the book is garbage, but it's saved from being a one-star review for the couple of times Jobling actually writes some credible material, which is rare, but it really is in there if you look hard enough. I'm giving it two stars because it dares to call itself Definitive when it is anything but. I'm giving it two stars because some of the writing is so abysmal it comes off as an illiterate blogger. I'm giving it two stars because it is the WORST index I've ever seen in a book. Come on, St. Martin's, I know your standards have dropped significantly in the past few years in your pop culture department — my husband is reading the Paul Anka bio right now and says the editing is so terrible it's almost unreadable — but in the digital age, a simple search through a pdf will create an index pretty quickly. Alison Stewart, for example, gets about 6 entries in the index even though she's mentioned about 30 times in the book. And other people who should be in the index aren't there at all. I've actually done index work for several books, and this is the shoddiest one I've ever seen. It's useless; you should have left it off and saved the paper. I'm giving it two stars because when he handed in the manuscript, he knew absolutely nothing about the new album, and his publisher didn't actually update it with a couple of paragraphs on the end, which would have been very easy to do right before going to the printer (we do it all the time at our press).

Even now, I'm considering removing one of the stars, but I'll leave it. I can't remember the last time I was so disappointed in a book.

[Armin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Persönliche Befangenheitserklärung (I)

John Joblings Bandbio, deren Schwerpunkt ganz klar auf den vielfältigen Aktivitäten Mastermind Bono liegt, hat viele Leute auf Goodreads ziemlich erbost, für die U2 so etwas wie der Soundtrack ihrer besten Jahre ist. Oder auch viel mehr, schließlich steht die Band nominell für ziemlich alle gerade angesagten Werte und die Beteiligung am eigenen Kampf für eine bessere Welt.
Ich habe Bono nie für die nächste Reinkarnation von Jesus Christus gehalten, dafür war ich schon mindestens fünf Jahre zu alt als U2 ihren Durchbruch hatten. So wenig wie mir Bob Dylan je als Erlöser oder Prophet erschienen ist, für diesen Hype war ich mindestens zehn Jahre zu jung. Mit Mitte fünfzig halte ich beide für ganz große Narzisten, die gern mit den Gefühlen von Leuten spielten, die nie von ihren klar definierten Träumen von einer besseren Welt lassen wollten. Entsprechend bitter fielen dann auch die Reaktionen seitens der Verehrer aus als sich die Idole als Egomanen entpuppten, die nicht selbst als allseits zugängliche Menschenfreunde in Armut und unter lauter Jüngern leben wollten, sondern sich eine ziemlich luxuriöse Privatsphäre gönnten. Ich werde hier keine Debatte führen, ob Bono und seine Bandkameraden oder Mister Zimmerman länger kreativ war oder ob U2 die Beatles ihrer Generation waren. Dass die vier Iren in kürzerer Zeit mit verhältnismäßig wenigen Platten sehr viel mehr Geld verdient haben als die Fab Four oder Dylan steht außer Frage.

Meine Ansicht über das Buch

Dass U2 nicht gerne geteilt haben, aber schnell alles hinter sich ließen, wenn jemand mit noch dickeren Bündeln winkte, zeichnet Jobling ziemlich klar auf. Er hat auch mit genügend Leuten gesprochen, die nicht nur irgend wann auf der Strecke blieben, sondern die noch nachträglich bis in den Ruin getrieben wurden. Etwa jene Stylistin, weil ihre um die horizontale Ebene bereinigtes Erinnerungsbuch über The Joshua Tree und die anschließende Tour, ein paar Risse am Monument der Rockgötter aufzeigte. Bis zu The Joshua Tree verfolgt JJ die Irrungen und Wirrungen der Band mit kritischer Sympathie und geht dabei in Sachen persönliche Marotten oder charakteristische Pannen nicht kritischer zu Werke wie z.B. Chris Welch in seiner Yes-Bio Close to the edge. Mit dem Größenwahn um Rattle and Hum geht er ziemlich ungnädig ins Gericht, findet aber bei Achtung Baby zu einem höheren Level der Bewunderung zurück. So weit es die Musik betrifft. Auch wenn die folgenden beiden Alben nicht mehr ganz so kohärent ausgefallen sind, kommt bei ihm die experimentelle Phase der Neunziger am besten weg, was dann noch folgt, lehnt er in Bausch und Bogen als kommerzielles auf maximalen Konsens kalkulierte Produkt ab. Allerdings trüben die Gemeinheiten der Band in Sachen Geschäftsgebaren ein wenig sein Urteil, bei der Analyse oder Verdammung des späteren musikalischen Outputs bin ich vollkommen anderer Meinung (siehe Befangenheitserklärung II) in Sachen Kritik an der Geldvermehrungsmaschine und der Doppelmoral von Bono bin ich aber ganz bei ihm. Die Auflistung sämtlicher Kontakte aus Politik, die der charmante Schuldentilger Afrikas auf Kosten anderer Leute becircte hat mich gelegentlich sogar ein wenig gelangweilt.
Das finanzielle Fazit dafür in seiner Härte doch ziemlich erschüttert: Viele der demonstrativ erlassenen Schulden waren ohnehin schon realisierte Verluste in anderen Fällen mussten die betroffenen Staaten eine knallharte Rosskur nach den Regeln der Weltbank durchziehen, sprich so viel wie möglich privatisieren und damit den Reichen und Spekulanten zum Fraß vorwerfen. Vielleicht hat Bonos legendärer Charme ja die bittere Pille ein wenig versüßen können. Aber mit neuen Freunden, die für die absolut desaströse Umwandlung der Sowjetunion in eine Oligarchie verantwortlich waren, kann man auch nichts anderes erwarten.
Die Steuerflucht des Unternehmens U2 aus dem armen Irland nach Holland ist das wohl ausführlichste Kapitel in Sachen Doppelmoral, zumal Bono weiterhin demonstrativ von jeder Regierung Schuldenerlass fordert und seine Audienzen für Staatsoberhäupter von entsprechenden Zusagen abhängig macht.
Als Nicht-Amerikaner erschüttert es mich nicht weiter, dass Bono ebenso gut mit Bill Clinton wie mit George Bush konnte und von Barak Obama nicht mehr so ernst genommen wurde, die beiden Demokraten waren ohnehin Heuchler und Bush eine Marionette des Militärisch-industriellen-Komplexes. Ein Phänomen wie Donald Trump als Präsident war während der Fertigstellung der Bio nicht vorstellbar.

Bei der Wechselwirkung von Musik und Politik gab es zwei besonders erschütternde Kapitel:

1.) Band-Aid und seine desaströsen Auswirkungen auf die Menschen, denen geholfen werden sollte. Die Einnahmen aus den beiden Weihnachtssingles und den Festivals in London und Philadelphia wurden bedingungslos an ein kommunistisches Regime weiter geleitetet, das Krieg gegen Teile der eigenen Bevölkerung führte und das Geld keineswegs zur Linderung der Hungersnot einsetzte. Bei mit Live-Aid-Geldern finanzierten Umsiedlungsaktionen, die für viele zu Todesmärschen gerieten, kamen mehr Menschen ums Leben als die Hungersnot gefordert hätte, gegen die so wacker angesungen wurde.

2.) U2 als Gewinner des 11. September

Als Reaktion auf die Anschläge wurden ziemlich viele Hits bei den Sendern aussortiert, die vielleicht die Gefühle der traumatisierten Nation verletzen konnten. Das eigentlich schon aus den Top 100 gerutschte Album All that you can leave behind war voll von Songs, die niemand verletzten konnten und geriet im zweiten Anlauf durch viel Sendezeit zum Bestseller mit 12 Millionen verkauften Exemplaren.

Persönliche Befangenheitserklärung (II)

Die Hits aus dem betreffenden Album Beautiful Day und Stuck in a Moment mag ich auch, als Gesamtwerk überzeugt mich das Kriegsgewinnleralbum nicht wirklich. Aber dasselbe könnte ich auch über The Joshua Tree sagen, nach den ersten vier Titel kommt nichts annähernd Vergleichbares, manches von dem auf der zweiten CD von Best of 1980-1990 wieder aufgetauchten Ausschuss spricht mich mehr an. Aber ich habe, wie schon gesagt, nicht die zweite Hälfte der Achtziger rund um die Uhr The Joshua Tree laufen lassen. Die Simple Minds waren schon früher mit mehreren deutlich substanzielleren Platten auf dem Markt, haben sich aber seit spätestens 2002 nicht mehr kreativ regeneriert.
Ich hatte in den Achtzigern und frühen Neunzigern nichts gegen U2, es gab aber viel zu viele fünf oder sechs Jahre jüngere Kommilitoninnen, die Bono und Co. gut fanden, auch weil sie ihnen immer noch das Christentum abnahmen. Mein Interesse an U2 hatte sich mit dem Video zu The Fly erledigt, das ich auch jetzt noch ziemlich abstoßend finde. Was danach kam ging an mir lange Jahre vorbei, auch für neuere Bekanntschaften mit deutlich jüngeren Männern war der spätere Output enttäuschend, wenn nicht gar Verrat an den Idealen von The Joshua Tree.
Bonos Gipfelgehopse hatte ich nie besonders ernst genommen, aber insgesamt hatte U2 bei mir einen Status gewonnen wie Yes in meiner Jugendzeit. Beide Bands waren mir auf dem Gifpfel ihres gesamtgesellschaftlichen Wirkens wegen ihrer Posiererei und dem Bessermenschentum ihrer Fans zuwider. Mit etwas historischer Distanz lassen sich die musikalischen Verdienste besser würdigen, auch der Post-2000 Output von U2. No Line on the Horizon ist für mich sogar das Gipfelwerk, wiewohl die für den Sampler noch mal nachgebesserten Tracks auf Best of 1990-2000 auch ein ziemlich überzeugendes Album ergeben, gegen das die von JJ geschätzten Originalfassungen doch ziemlich abstinken.
Es ist schon Paradox, obwohl ich doch gerade erst sämtliche Scheußlichkeiten dieser grässlichen Band gelesen habe, klingen sogar How to dismantle an atomic Bomb oder Songs of Innocence/Experience ziemlich gut. Es hat etwas für sich, wenn man eine Band erst spät für sich entdeckt, vor allem, eine, die mit einem überzeugenden Spätwerk aufwarten kann.
Und das Buch von Jobling? Großartig, überzeugend als Kritik an der Doppelmoral einer Band, die mit ihrem Anspruch des Bessermenschentums der Kundschaft mehr Geld abnimmt als jeder andere Act und mit exzessiven Shows einen überdimensionalen CO2-Fußabdruck hinterlässt.
Musik ist halt Geschmackssache. Die größte Enttäuschung für ihn ist der Umstand, dass sich die Weltverbesserungsband in die Rolling Stones verwandelt hat, alles eine Frage der persönlichen Fallhöhe, beide Bands verfügen über ein eindrucksvolles Spätwerk, die Exzesse von Mick Jagger und Co kenne ich schon länger und ausführlicher als die von Bono, The Edge, Larry Mullen und Adam Clayton, dass das Finanzgebahren der Stones längst nicht einen so skandalösen Stellenwert einnimmt, macht einem die Altrocker beinahe sympathisch.

[Paul Gleason · Rating 2 out of 5]

Don't bother. There's a way in which to write a biography from an objective standpoint. Jobling compromises his "objectivity" by developing a negative tone, which gets worse as the book goes on. Believe me - I know that U2 have their flaws. We all do. But Jobling doesn't seem to recognize this. He makes the mistake of positioning himself ABOVE his subject. It's not his job to EVALUATE everything U2 does.

And his intimations are downright mean-spirited. Why does he have to take Bono's words out of context - repeatedly - and intimate that he's cheated on his wife, done heroin, etc.? And how many cheap shots can he take at Larry, referring to his height and repeating constantly that he's a bad drummer? This is all weak-minded opinion and has nothing to do with telling the story of the band.

The book is so bad it actually makes for some unintentionally hilarious reading. You can tell that Jobling has never been in a band. He actually criticizes U2 for not being "perfect" as players when they first started playing together! This guy just doesn't seem to understand the ethos of DIY and post-punk.

Jobling also has the sad habit of quoting other, more credible sources on U2 and then manipulating (read: sensationalizing) the material to prove a point that the original source has nothing to do with.

And - get this - he also seems to know what the members of U2 think about everything. He had a god-like access to their brains and souls. I'm glad that he somehow knows that Bono at one point was so insecure about his height that when he had to sing next to Springsteen, he wore a cowboy hat. I'm so glad that he knows that Edge found it so hard to leave Shalom because the prayer meetings gave him so much solace.

But perhaps the biggest failure of Jobling's approach is that he doesn't discuss U2 as artists. Nowhere does he discuss Larry's and Adam's unique styles except to say that they don't know what they're doing. Couldn't they just be original artists? Creative? Bono also doesn't get his due. Why does he write his lyrics and sing the way he does? For that matter, why does he give scant attention to Edge and his massive innovations on guitar? Doesn't it interest him that the man - as Pete Townshend said of John Entwistle - "changed the 'f'in' instrument"?

Yikes!

[Alina · Rating 1 out of 5]

Thanks to warnings from some reviewers here and on Amazon, I didn't buy this book. But out of curiosity, I checked it out of the library. It's a hatchet job, but a sneaky one, since the author isn't negative about everything and does include some actual facts about the band. I can understand how some people, esp. those without much prior knowledge of U2, might mistake this for an unbiased biography. But an unbiased biographer wouldn't print quotes containing demonstrably false statements without saying something about it, and certainly wouldn't make false statements himself. An honest writer wouldn't pepper the text with weasel words and innuendo intended to create a negative impression, or talk about the band as if he's God and knows their innermost thoughts. Let me give you a few examples, out of the many I noticed, to illustrate what I mean.

The most flamboyantly unreliable material comes from a woman who worked for U2 as a stylist during the Joshua Tree tour. The author devotes many pages to her stories about the band, which are weird, embarrassing, and highly implausible. For example, she claims that, on one occasion, Bono was so anxious to appear taller that she lent him her red high-heeled shoes, which he hid under long pants. To buy this, you'd have to believe that: a) Bono just happened to have her same shoe size, and b) long pants would have prevented anyone from noticing he was wearing women's shoes -- red ones, mind you. She also claims the reason she had conflicts with other U2 staffers is because they were jealous of her closeness with Bono. Yeah, I get the picture. I've known people like this. I looked her up and discovered she was ordered by a judge to return U2 memorabilia that she stole from the band when she worked for them, because besides making money off them by writing a scurrilous book, she also tried to sell their stuff at auction. The author doesn't mention any of this until near the end of his book, when he spends many pages on what anyone with even the most minimal critical reading skills can tell is a very biased version of events. He makes this woman out to be an innocent victim of big mean U2, who lost everything due to legal costs. Never mind that she was the one who brought the suit and that not one but two courts of law found her to be a liar.

Later on, when speaking about the band's conflicts during the making of Achtung Baby, the author says this: "Consistent with their cult-like mentality, all animosity within the group relating to money matters was kept in house for the good of the brand image." But in Bill Flanagan's book, U2: At the End of the World, which is about Zoo TV and Achtung Baby, U2's financial arrangements are discussed at length. The five-way even split between the four band members and their manager. Who gains the most, and who loses the most, through this even split vs. a traditional allocation of royalties. How the band considered changing things and decided against it. Since Flanagan's book is one of the most widely read U2 books, this does not constitute cult-like secrecy.

Speaking of Flanagan, later on the author quotes "a source" who says, "He was ostracized by them [U2] afterward. Flanagan really damaged himself with that book, by writing the truth. So that's the kind of people you're dealing with." Gee, those are strong words. I've never heard any hint of a falling out between Flanagan and the band, but I did a little googling to double check. The first thing that came up was that Flanagan interviewed Bono for his radio show in 2017. But that's after this book came out in 2014, so I looked for information that would have been available to the author when he was preparing the book. I found a 2011 interview with Flanagan where he talked about hanging with Bono and writing a book for the 20th anniversary box set of Achtung Baby. I also found a 2005 interview where he described how Bono plugged his novel by carrying the book in the video for Beautiful Day. Yep, terribly ostracized, poor man.

The last part of the book paints a very negative picture of Bono's work to fight AIDS and extreme poverty. The author kicks this off by saying, "Fame and fortune in the music business were not enough for the enormously ambitious Bono. He longed for power on a major scale and harbored political aspirations." How does the author know that Bono longs for power as opposed to longing to do some good in the world? Is he telepathic? I don't think it's beyond bounds for a biographer to speculate about his subject's motivations, but only if he describes the evidence and reasoning on which he bases his opinion. For a writer to ascribe bad motives to someone he doesn't even know, based on nothing, isn't just the sign of a completely unserious biographer, it's the sign of a total douche.

So who exactly is this author, anyway? According to the bragging rights blurb on the jacket of my library book, he is "the former music editor of the UK lifestyle website Mansized, and has also contributed to DotMusic, Total Film, and PlayStation Sports." Wow, how impressive. No wonder the book is so good.

Nothing in this book can be believed unless it has also appeared in credible sources. So if you're actually interested in learning about the band, don't waste your time or money.

[Amy Johnson · Rating 1 out of 5]

This book bills itself as "The Definitive Biography" but a better subtitle would be "I Really Hate U2, and Especially Bono." Jobling is the most unbiased "biographer" I've ever read. He makes statements that he backs up with no facts or sources, relies heavily on "insider intel" from a disgruntled ex-employee of the band who was engaged in a lawsuit with them, and gives oddly specific accounts of events and interpersonal band relations that he can in no way verify happened (likely because he made them up or based them on gossip.)

The first part of the book is the most unbiased and simple - recounting how the band started and their early struggles. But around the time they become successful during the "War" tour is when Jobling begins his work of tearing them apart. The latter part of the book focuses especially on Bono and passive aggressively (but mostly the latter) infers that the entire basis for Bono's humanitarianism is his need to be a megalomaniac rock star (which, honestly - couldn't he just do that WITHOUT also trying to save the world?!).

I'm a proud lifelong U2 fan and was excited to read this but by the end I just thought Jobling was a bitter weasel! Yes U2 are phenomenally successful and yes, they are a corporation that earns millions of dollars and supports hundreds (if not thousands) of people, and yes, it is well known that they are a tightly run and very secretive organization. But without any actual investigative reporting, interviews with people in the know, or basic fact checking - this is just a long slog through how U2 are the Worst According to John Jobling.

Giving it one star because the cover is great.

[Alex · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a well-written, well-researched book about one of my favorite bands. The beginning was a bit difficult, as it was tough to know which people to keep track of, and it was perhaps overly detailed. The last few chapters barely seemed to touch on U2's music at all, focusing instead on Bono's humanitarian efforts. Additionally, it was sad to learn about how money- and power-hungry U2 seem to be, particularly Bono.

However, I loved the chapters in the middle, from the recording of "The Unforgettable Fire" to "All That You Can't Leave Behind". Although I generally knew the story, it was exciting to read all the details about them rising to their peak (due in large part to a fortuitous partnership with Brian Eno) with "The Joshua Tree" and "Achtung Baby", getting carried away with fame, losing the respect of critics, and eventually gaining it back.

As disheartening as it was to learn about the flaws of the members of a band you love, it was satisfying that Jobling wrote this more as an honest depiction of a rock band who, in spite of their talents, make many questionable decisions outside the realm of music, rather than an empty, biased tribute by a die-hard fan.

[Jen · Rating 3 out of 5]

Let's just start with the confession that I'm a huge, and lifelong U2 fan, so while I can understand that there are folks who don't enjoy them as much as I am, I have a hard time with the demonization that Jobling heaps on them for 350 pages. They are a business, a big one; and I certainly can't criticize them for being a tight circle that isn't easy to let others in. They are also a brand, a big one; and I also can't criticize them for protecting the brand name, and trying to further it's cause. So they're capitalists, whatever.

It's pretty clear that Jobling has it out for Bono in particular. While I can accept that maybe his profile has been damaging to certain causes, or that he's been a bit hypocritical in his stance on African debt while at the same time trying to make money for his band, he's light years ahead of some other celebrities who use their clout and riches to buy professional sports teams and don't seem to have a clue about how the other half lives. I can't criticize Bono in any way for trying to use his personal celebrity to shed light on global issues that he believes aren't paid enough attention to.

I've read plenty (PLENTY) of U2 biographies; this is not the best (see: U2 at the End of the World), but it fills a niche. I've never read a biography that is so critical, or one that addresses U2 the business and the brand rather than U2 the music and the musicians that make the music. To that end, this was an interesting book, and I'm glad to have read it. But at the end of the book, what really left me wanting was there is so little discussion of the music. Jobling refers to Jim DeRogatis and Greg Cot a number of times, but very rarely addressing the quality (or not) of the songs and albums. They've made some stinkers, but you have to give U2 credit for continuing to sell; if it was all bad, or never made a connection with listeners they wouldn't. That has to count for something.

[Emily · Rating 2 out of 5]

I had high hopes for this book, and ended up being extremely disappointed! The book starts off great when the author talks about the band's beginnings and their early history. As the book goes on however, his bias is increasingly more and more apparent and it seems clear that he has a distaste for the band, particularly Bono. The book became pretty unreadable as it got towards the end as the author rambled on about how U2 didn't have a grip, how Bono was too wrapped up in getting involved in politics, and how their latest music (at the time, their 2009 album No Line On The Horizon) was basically a commercial regurgitation of earlier albums (which I completely disagree with). For being a so-called "Definitive" biography, I expected so much more, and not a ton of nasty jabs at Bono and rumors about the band from unnamed "close sources".

[Peter O'Connor · Rating 4 out of 5]

I had long thought Bono to be a dick. Imagine my surprise then to find that he was an even bigger dick than I had ever imagined. This warts and all tale of the rise and rise of U2 makes for a great read as a fast paced rock and roll fable whether you are into the band or not. Those that are into the whole rock messiah thing may not like much about this book but there are certainly enough hard facts in here to suggest that U2 are maybe not quite the knights in shining armour that many might think. The transition from band with a social conscience to power-mad, money-grubbing corporate behemoth (everything they were supposedly against) makes for a pretty damn interesting read.

[Martti · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's an inspirational story in the sense that some high school nobodies started a band and climbed the heights only dreamed by the plebes. And in the 80s and 90s they managed to make some pretty good music.

On the other hand if you read carefully, you can also find evidence that a bunch of wankers can roll a couple lucky sixes in a row and learn to barely make music. Whichever version you want to subscribe to, you can find evidence for both versions. But be warned, it might destroy the illusions if you've just been enjoying some music and ignored everything else. Like the dirty music business side or that Paul David Hewson, David Howell Evans, Laurence Joseph Mullen Jr and Adam Charles Clayton are just humans. In this "unauthorized" biography we get to see the band from the beginnings through the times they made good music till now when they have turned into the soulless money machine in the end of the band's lifecycle.

Listening to music, my main focus is on the instrumental. Melody, rhythm, instruments, cool variations, correct loops, power and silence in the right, almost logical places. So "correct" vocals for me are also one of the instruments. And Bono is one of these "correct" vocal instruments that I've heard all my life and not really noticed any of the writing. Only reading this book and revisiting some albums I started to notice this overly religious fanatical Irish catholic context in some cases, like in "Bullet the Blue Sky". I've never noticed there is a religious recitative section. Jesus H. Christ. Now I'd wish he'd just shut up and enjoy Edge's fantastic guitarsmanship and the orgastic drive Adam and Larry provide. Frakin book, made me notice the things I was blissfully ignoring. "Never meet your heroes". It's one of the notes from the first half of the book which talks a lot about the music.

LiveAid is a legendary concert and a charity drive, especially for Queen. Also U2 participated, but they only managed 2 out of 3 planned songs, because Bono went hugging a girl for too long. It was the first sparkle of Bono's transformation into charity lobbyist. But what's more interesting, is how the author John Jobling summarizes the results of LiveAid and BandAid - Bob Geldof's efforts to raise money for the starving children of Ethiopia by bringing out the biggest bands at the time. Jobling breaks down what actually happened with the aid relief, and how the NGOs took that money over there, which then allowed the government to use it to relocate people to deserted, infertile areas, essentially making the famine last a decade longer than it would have without any aid. According to the author, when told of this, Geldof and Bono reacted with little more than a shrug. This seems to be the trend most of Bono's charity operations that are more thorougly analyzed in the second half of the book.

Interesting factoid - Bono and Edge wrote the Tina Turner's Bond song "GoldenEye". And they're

Weird lack of confidence occurred in 2002 when they released "The Best of 1990-2000". They toned down Gone, Discotheque, Numb and Staring At the Sun to be so called "radio friendly". It was supposed to be a "best of", but instead they changed old songs and released two new ones as well on it - Electrical Storm and The Hands That Built America.

U2 is a business empire. Especially in the 2000s when they made a deal with Apple iTunes, embracing the new digital music industry, contrary to Metallica who sued Napster etc.

Bono also was working for various charities and dealing with politicians a lot, but then U2 optimized taxes and moved their corporation away from Ireland to Netherlands. So on one hand they were promoting for governments to invest tax money in charity and social justice projects, but on the other hand they themselves didn't want to pay taxes in their own backyard. Hypocrite much?

The transition from a band with a social conscience to power-hungry, money-grubbing corporate behemoth (everything they were supposedly against) is a damn interesting read.

[Matthew Williams · Rating 2 out of 5]

I started out very interested in the book but it quickly became apparent that the writing was poor, the author interjected too many of his own opinions on a variety of issues (The Catholic Church is the largest cult around? That's a paraphrase and btw I'm not Catholic.), and that he had an agenda of casting the band member in the poorest light possible. I lost count of how many times he pointed out how small and pathetic Larry was and how he believes Bono just makes things up. I actually could have forgiven a lot of the mud slinging if the writing had been stellar. It wasn't even close.

[JAnn Bowers · Rating 5 out of 5]

I found this unauthorised biography of the members of the band to be an excellent read. I am a huge fan of U2 and reading their untold stories and activist movements, especially of Bono was really interesting. I haven't followed the band for a few years now, so it was like catching up on the latest news.

[Jennifer · Rating 2 out of 5]

I'm a biased U2 fan but honestly, this book was a hatchet job aimed at showing U2 and their music and lives in the worst light possible. Lots of unnamed "sources" spouting conjecture with very little fact to back it up.

[Richard Epstein · Rating 1 out of 5]

I haven't read this. Maybe I will. Let me check. Pigs flying? Hell frozen over? Cubs in the World Series? I guess not then.

[Tanel Vari · Rating 3 out of 5]

Otsi lolli, kes ei kardaks kolli
kui on kollil rahamaitse suus.
Raha mängib elus põhirolli.
Raha see on õnn ja armastus.

Keskendunud arengule ja loomingule. Nasty bits on välja jäetud ja personaalsetesse suhetesse pole liiga süvenetud. Oleks tiba rohkem rokki ja rolli tahtnud.

Tõlge jooksis muidu ladusalt, aga kohati oli mingisuguseid lapsusi võinud rohkem välja toimetada. Palju see eesti inimene NYC-i ikka suureks õunaks kutsub.

[Caroline · Rating 2 out of 5]

I picked this book up casually, but I got more annoyed by it the more I read, and ended up putting it down because essentially I don't care about what seems to be Jobling's biggest complaint, that these guys got rich, after borrowing money from their parents a lot during their first few years trying to be a band, and it changed them despite their insisting when they were young that it never would. Um, duh? How many of us who are their age meant to remain ideologically pure and didn't? I imagine the fact that this guy is writing a bestselling unauthorized biography isn't what he thought he'd be doing when he was 18 either.

I don't necessarily expect people that I admire for their musical or artistic or athletic talent to also be people that I would personally want to be best friends with, or to always behave admirably, and mostly I don't want to know as long as they are not promoting something I find personally abhorrent like white supremacism or homophobia that I don't want to finance. Say what you want about Bono, he's been with the same woman since about 1976 and they've managed to raise four apparently mostly sane children. He could probably have gone off on his own like Sting or Paul McCartney but he's still playing with the same guys after 40 years and to all appearances they enjoy themselves. He also puts a lot of money into causes he finds important, and he will work with just about anyone he thinks can help, which is a pragmatic approach and one valid way to go about it.

Skimming ahead I also got the feeling that Jobling liked the mid-90s albums like Pop and Zooropa because the band continued to "grow" and "experiment" and that when they began moving back to a style more like their earlier work he thought they became sellouts. There are many who disagree with that, I didn't care as much for those recordings and much prefer the slightly stripped-down sound they began with. He wants them to continually change musically but remain the same personally, I think. The very last line of the book is something like "we will probably have them around for another ten years but U2 is over." ?? I don't think so.

Reading some of the reviews on Amazon I found that this book was hardly universally liked. If you like U2's music and want to find out just a little more about them but don't want to get mixed up in any controversy, use the internet. The only thing I got out of this (which I probably should have already known) that was useful in understanding their politics was that (except I think for Larry) they're protestants who grew up in Dublin in the 60s and 70s when things were so ugly in the north.

[Dave · Rating 3 out of 5]

John Jobling's "definitive" biography of U2 - arguably the World's Biggest Band - chronicles the Irish foursome's rise to pop music dominance in a manner that is revealing, critical, yet remains unbiased. Much of the information contained within will be familiar to devoted fans of U2, given that the author relies entirely on existing interviews, reviews and articles to gain access to the band's point of view. Jobling did, however, extensively interview many former members of the U2 inner circle in an attempt to sneak a peek inside the tightly controlled U2 machine. Unfortunately, the accusations and anecdotes he culls from former production personnel, business associates, and peers are not addressed directly by the band, leaving the readers to judge for themselves the validity of the information. While perhaps not as much of an expose as one might expect, the real value of Jobling's work lies in the wealth of detail surrounding U2's early days and the recording of their albums. Much of the information may have been previously printed in numerous magazines and newspapers, but to have it all succinctly summarized in a single, well-written volume should be a nice treat for U2 fans.

[Kelly Clark · Rating 3 out of 5]

I would have rated this book higher if the author would have stayed true to his formula of relating the musical & social relevance and progression of the band through each successive album. However, by the last few chapters I sinced the author trying to make a name for himself by attacking the bands tax status and handling of thier own money. U2 has probably done more and given more to create social awareness around so many issues that I am saddened by this author's attempt to undermine their efforts because he doesn't personally agree with how U2 earn, spend and handle thier own money. Overall though, I am glad that I read this book, now I will go and listen to U2.

[Thomas Thieme · Rating 4 out of 5]

Wow, this book almost reads like Animal Farm. Be warned, this is a warts'n'all affair. Very detailed and very much not authorized. You will come away with a sobering view of U2. Having read many biographies of musicians, I can tell you this is not your typical story of a quick trip to the top followed by self-destructive behavior and ending with either ruin or redemption. This is more the quick trip to the top and managing to go even higher. There is the obligatory back story of each of their family trees. (Does anyone really not just skim those?) and our author early on sets them up (at least in the beginning) as David against the Goliath music industry. We begin with three out of four of them being staunch religious zealots who slowly succumbed to the rock and roll life of sex, drugs and most of all, money. And with money, of course, the power that corrupts. There is a lot of interesting detail in the creation of their albums through Achtung Baby, a quick zip through Zooropa, the troubles with Pop and from there, less detail. That may be because there isn't as much to say: They sometimes began with new ideas and directions but inevitably they set their experimental music aside and returned to their tried and true formula with all eyes on the dollar sign. Sorry if that disappoints but you know what their music has been like from 2000 on. Space is given over to the Edge's interesting musical development. Much more space is given to Bono's adventures as globetrotting diplomat and venture capitalist. That will prove to be an eye-opener. Little quibbles: My experience of U2 is through MTV so having seen their little union with REM (Anyone remember Automatic Baby?), it might have nice to learn that back story. Also, Larry set himself a solid deadline for leaving the band. This book ends in 2014. He obviously hasn't left. I wish that would have been wrapped or at least summed up. I feel the author did try to give a balanced look at the band, interviewing people who have worked with them that were more than sympathetic as well as the not so sympathetic, like the individual they sued into bankruptcy and oblivion over a cowboy hat. I came away with a very different view of this band after reading this. There are no lurid Hollywood Babylon tales to be found here (This author was obviously anxious to avoid incurring their wrath.) but there are enough comments and anecdotes to ensure you'll know they happened.

[RetroHound · Rating 2 out of 5]

What a hit job. Author Jobling never passes an opportunity to slag Bono or quote someone who has something bad to say about U2. He starts off OK with only a few hints of his intense dislike of the band, but by the time of The Joshua Tree he really unleashes. For a while he only quotes disgruntled former employees.

In his rush to discredit U2, he glosses over items of interest, such as, he quotes The Edge a few times saying how he would rather be with his family, but then suddenly he is getting divorced. What happened? How did a man so concerned with family lose his?

There are valid questions to ask, most people are complicated and inconsistent, and it is good to know about some moral failings such as when after pestering countries to give significant amounts of their GDP to Africa, they moved the publishing company to The Netherlands to avoid paying high taxes in Ireland.

Jobling basically ignores Bono's and Edge's and Larry's religion except to occasionally mock it. As if the only thing that motivates Bono in his activism is to be in the spotlight. While he certainly doesn't fit the mold of a US fundamentalist, his Christian faith molds his thinking and motivates his charity.

U2 is my favorite band, I have all of the albums, but none of the extras or special editions. And I don't follow celebrity private lives much, so I learned some things reading this, but had to slog through a lot of mud to get there.

[Peter · Rating 5 out of 5]

A fascinating look at one of the world's greatest bands. It gives an objective view of the band, praising them for their artistry and sometimes condemning them for their preachiness and hypocrisy. I learned that Larry Mullen Jr. was not a good drummer at first, and was constantly picked on by the band (which may explain why the author says Mullen is always wanting to quit the band). The book balances the music along with the political activism of Bono, with some interesting looks into each member's personal life. U2 by U2 is too subjective; if you want the real story, warts and all, this is it.

[Becky · Rating 2 out of 5]

Lots of unattributed (made up?) quotes, saying what people were thinking when you haven't interviewed them.... The thing with the teacher was downright weird. Sure, there are more warts than in their own book, but which of the warts are real & which made up? I read an account of the Tokyo incident by the other man who was there & it's rather different (Jobling pretty much implies Bono took heroin that night.... Fitzgerald's account of it, while wild, says he didn't). And he says that Bill Flanagan - whose book has the account of the incident he embellished - was ostracized by U2, which clearly isn't the case. So, meh.

[Luther Kayban · Rating 3 out of 5]

Decent book. Offers a decently detailed history of the band that will sustain the interest of any fan. Unfortunately, fails to deliver nearly any meaningful insights about the creation of atyclb and htdaab, which seems absurd since they are among the band's highest-selling and most-awarded albums. The book would be much better if the detail given to describing and analyzing The Joshua Tree's production was likewise ascribed to these two albums as well. The book's conclusion, also, is extremely rushed and neglects a fully-formed summation of the author's view regarding the band's legacy, identity, etc.

[RMSOX · Rating 3 out of 5]

I fairly decent into to U2, but far too many biases by the author, especially towards the end of the book, led me to believe he was trying to stir the pot in order to increase sales. Didn't hate it, just feel like I need to read a more authoritative book on this group.

[Nick DiVittorio · Rating 5 out of 5]

Great book about the greatest band ever

[Nose Knows · Rating 3 out of 5]

Eye opening.

[Reelika Raimet · Rating 5 out of 5]

https://raamaturiiulike.wordpress.com...

[Benjamin Ried · Rating 2 out of 5]

John Jobling seems to set out to discredit U2 instead of providing a definitive biography.

[Elizabeth · Rating 2 out of 5]

I dunno. This book could have focused more on the music and less on being a negative nelly.

[Dave Schwensen · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is a career-spanning book on U2 and with more than four decades of worldwide success, it could not have been an easy task. The author did a great job researching and writing and for that reason the word “definitive” belongs in the title. He covers the band from the beginning (and ongoing) partnership, music, and dedication to success, while also exploring an undertone of greed, control and power.
*
Unfortunately, the story of U2 is not as compelling as the rags to riches sagas of Elvis, The Beatles, The Rolling Stones and others. This is not the fault of the writer and he does not embellish any of the facts while giving readers insight into how the pieces of this rock and roll puzzle came together and continues to run. Of the foursome, I found Adam Clayton to be the most interesting. When it comes to celebrity bios, the best “page-turners” take us on journeys mixed with the highs and lows of success, failure, scandal and other events that keep readers interested in what happens next. Clayton more than fits that requirement.
*
Usually standing apart for various reasons (including the other members of U2 speaking in tongues and questioning their music for religious reasons), Clayton lived a rock star life that included success, defiance, overindulgence, “crash and burn” – and then bounced back for more. But much of his story seems to be skimmed over. For instance, he dates supermodel Naomi Campbell, but 18 months later he’s marrying someone else. The same can be said for U2 members Edge and Larry Mullen, Jr. Career and personal highs and lows are mentioned, but neither seems to have the charisma of Clayton. They just aren’t as interesting.
*
That leaves the “star” of U2, lead singer Bono. Already the subject of other books and countless news stories, he’s known for his vocal prowess, stage presence, political activism and fundraising efforts. His globe trotting efforts and meetings with world leaders is described in detail worthy of being featured articles in Time Magazine. This is an important part of the story, but relegates the other members to only being supporting players in a book about their band. In many instances it felt like I was reading about world events instead of U2.
*
I enjoyed the excitement of U2’s personal interaction, the music, and their rise to fame and world tours. It’s all in the book, but pulled into different directions by a focus on Bono’s story. As a fan, I’d also want to know what Adam Clayton was doing while Bono was out saving the world.