We all thought Danger Mouse hadn't made any comment about U2 after the band finished SOI, well not exactly..
In August 2014 Broken Bells (DM and James Mercer's band) did a live session and interview with NPR's Sound Opinions show. (The show itself aired in November, go to about the 41 minute mark if you want to hear it in complete context: Yo
https://www.soundopinions.org/show/467
One of the hosts, Jim DeRogatis, asked DM how he balances being in-demand as a perceived 'hitmaker' particularly with U2, and his own career as an avant-garde artist. This was DM's response:
"The thing is, you have to figure out: do you want to be celebrated or discovered? I think that you spend so much of your time at the beginning trying to be discovered, that once you start to be celebrated, you just want to keep that. And that’s boring. The sound of that is pretty boring."
"I think that if you want to be discovered, then that takes balls, it takes another risk, and you can lose a lot if you do that. But the sound of people holding on to what they have is usually not very good.â€
Obviously, no one who hasn't heard the Danger Mouse sessions can really say what they sound like, and even if we all heard them I'm sure there would be a multiplicity of opinions about their value like with anything else. But it seems to me like they left more adventurous, ballsy stuff on the cutting room floor in favor of their hallmark sounds.
I think that's oversimplifying it.
As an artist myself, I can say that it doesn't really come down to preferring "hallmark" over "ballsy". (Or "celebrated" over "discovered.") It's more unquantifiable than that. It's an ongoing exploration of what you know and what you still have to learn, and how to make them work ... according to your own sensibilities.
I've been at it long enough that I've developed a style. I know how to make a painting look like THAT. But I've also been at it long enough to know that I will never stop evolving. Not because I'm consciously trying to (except when I am

) but because I can't help it; evolution is the nature of art. Every painting you attempt changes the way you attempt the next one.
But that doesn't mean that every new direction I try is superior to the "old way" just because it's new. I can stick in the color orange over here, and yes, that's very exciting, but the composition as a whole falls apart unless I compliment it with that tried and true blue over there. The individual bits and pieces may be brilliant; but the whole is what matters. And if I have to toss out the new to make the whole work ... out it goes. To be saved for another day, if it's really valid. Sometimes new ideas are just that; new. Nothing else.
It also doesn't mean that if I fall back on the tried and true to make something work, I've stopped experimenting. Every painting is an experiment. I never copy myself; I can't, I've tried; they always fail, they have no life. But I can use what I already know to make something new but incomplete into something whole.
There are many people who are bored silly by the kind of work I do. There's others, fortunately, that think it's great. And there's others still that, every once in awhile, see more in a painting than I actually put there. I did one of my sister one time, and did the most traditional layout, color, brushstrokes, etc. I could muster, because I had no other goal than to make something pretty for her. But the response I got to it blew me away; people were talking about how emotional it was, how it drew them in, how it challenged them, how original it was. Who knew? I entered it in an art show and won a lot of money. It was a critical and commercial success!
And the next show I submitted it to, it was rejected.
So which show organizers got it right?