A must read article: An Open Letter To U2: What Happened To Your Relevance? - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Your Blue Room > Everything You Know Is Wrong
Click Here to Login
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 03-14-2018, 10:47 AM   #1
War Child
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Slowloris-ville, Western Indonesia
Posts: 784
Local Time: 06:00 AM
A must read article: An Open Letter To U2: What Happened To Your Relevance?

https://scholarsandrogues.com/2017/1...relevance/amp/

An open letter to U2: what happened to your relevance?

Once U2 was the greatest band alive, but these days their attempts to stay current have more to do with following trends than connecting with the people.

U2 is my favorite band of all time, and I think there’s a very compelling argument to be made that they were the best band on the face of the Earth from 1983 to 1993, a decade-long era that began with the release of War and closed with Zooropa. In between they gave us Under a Blood Red Sky, The Unforgettable Fire, The Joshua Tree, Rattle & Hum and Achtung, Baby. If you want to roll back a little earlier and include Boy, 2 Sides Live and October I won’t argue with you. Not one little bit.

Other than The Beatles, I don’t think any band in history has ever had a better decade, and I’m not sure even the Fabs themselves were that much greater.

It hurts to say it, but the truth is U2 hasn’t been great since. Zooropa was what I have come to think of as an ambitious thought experiment, and Pop! was an absolutely brilliant intellectual (and breathtakingly ironic and bewilderingly double-reverse postmodern) treatise on the commodification of art, but not even Bono’s mum would rank them in the same category as Unforgettable Fire and War (both of which, in my estimation, were even greater than Joshua Tree).

Over the last 34 years or so the band has given us some very good work, and I’m liking the new release, Songs of Experience. But it isn’t great. More to the point, it, like everything else U2 has produced since Achtung, Baby, isn’t especially relevant. Many of the band’s old fans – people like me, largely early Gen Xers – are still tagging along, but the latest album won’t earn them a new generation of followers.

We’ve seen this sort of thing any number of times over the course of Rock’s 60-year history: one day a band or an artist is the biggest thing in the world, and the next day the world has moved on. People age, tastes change, times change, fashions change, the industry (which has never cared about much beyond the next easy buck) gets bored and dashes off in search of the next big thing, and so on. Then there was that time Nirvana came along and rendered a whole generation of acts obsolete. Kinda like The Beatles did 30 years before.

A lot of times the artist being shoved aside still has a lot to say, and if you pay attention you notice that periodically you’ll hear something from a band you forgot 20 years ago and, son of a bitch, it’s awesome. In other words, just because you stop paying attention doesn’t mean the artistic fires have gone out.

But is that true of U2? Are they still as great as they ever were? Is it the rest of the world’s fault they matter less now, or is it theirs?

Bono and Edge and Larry and Adam didn’t get dumb overnight. They didn’t forget how to play. They didn’t forget how to craft a tune. But all of a sudden, back in the mid-’90s, things got different. Why?

In a recent Rolling Stone interview, Edge talks about the band’s process, and he does so in a way that emphasizes just how deeply they think about what they’re doing and how well they understand the art of making a record. But there’s this passage:

But I think we’re also wary of the fact that that sound is associated with 20, 30 years ago. We need to make sure, as we always have done, that we are part of a current conversation that’s going in music culture in terms of production, songwriting, melodic structure, all the things that keep the culture moving forward.

What we don’t want to be is caught in what I describe as a cultural oxbow lake where others are moving forward and you’re still faithfully doing what you’ve always done, but now you’re anachronistic and part of a historical form rather than what’s actually pushing the boundaries forward, the flow of where it’s going. We’ll usually try to have our cake and eat it. We want it both: the hallmarks of the classic band, which is becoming more and more rare, but we also don’t want to be perceived, and we don’t want to be, a veteran act out of touch with the culture. [emphasis added]
In other words, U2 dedicates a good bit of energy to listening to other bands of the moment and to the task of staying … well, relevant. They don’t want to get ossified. They don’t want to become a tired old radio warhorse, relegated to the county fair circuit and playing ’80s revival tours every summer. They’ve seen it happen and they have no interest in becoming a nostalgia act.

This is all very smart. On paper. The thing is, I can’t help being cognizant of the fact that the band’s lessening importance has more or less coincided with how hard they’ve worked to remain current. They started listening to more Electronica in the ’90s, for instance, and you can hear, from time to time, how they’ve woven more contemporary influences into their music.

I don’t recall once, ever, during that golden 1983-93 era, thinking U2 was spending an ounce of energy on keeping their sound contemporary. On the contrary, some other bands made a few bucks sounding like them – The Alarm comes to mind, Big Country, maybe, and later on the abomination of Coldplay. AllMusic lists over 40 famous bands as followers, including the likes of Oasis, Radiohead and The Arcade Fire.

In short, it feels like the band that became the greatest in the world by leading has fallen off its perch thanks, in part, to a decision to follow. In 2017 they worry about “the things that keep the culture moving forward.” In 1983 they were the thing that kept the culture moving forward.

And what is relevance, anyway? Rock is built on an amalgamation of factors. The sound. The look and style. Charisma. Chops. Timing. Along these criteria and more, the artist connects with the audience. The music speaks to the lived experience of its listeners. They listen and they think hey, this song could have been written about me. Bands become great when they click with the time. You’d never have heard of The Sex Pistols had they come along in the late ’80s. San Francisco in the mid-’60s seems the only possible time The Grateful Dead could have happened. And thanks to the sewer that is the music and radio industry, if John, Paul, George and Ringo started a band in 2017 they’d be Army Navy.

But 1980s U2 did connect. The sound was groundbreaking, and they had a message. Passionate and earnest in the extreme, they crawled up in the face of the political concerns of the day – in Ireland and beyond. They weren’t afraid of the IRA and they certainly weren’t afraid of Evan Mecham. The people needed a voice and U2 was that voice.

The rise of facism and religious hatred around the world means we need that kind of voice today more than ever. But U2 isn’t it. And perhaps they can’t be anymore.

I will continue to love U2 for all they have been, and I imagine I’ll continue to like the albums they release. But I’m not sure I have any hope they’ll ever blow the lid off again. I doubt there will be another War, or another Unforgettable Fire, or a Joshua Tree or an Achtung, Baby. They changed the world once, and I don’t expect they will again. But hey, how many bands ever do it even once, right?

And how much different might my thinking be right now had they called it quits, as did REM, maybe after Achtung, Baby? It would have driven me mad, no doubt, but I’d never have any memories of U2 as anything but the greatest band in the world.

Still, I always hope they’ll try. I’ll always wonder what might happen if they piled into a panel van, packed only the equipment that would fit in a trailer, and spent a year doing unannounced gigs in small clubs across Donald’s Trump’s America. Maybe call it the “Listening Tour.”

And along the way, maybe they’d write a few songs and rediscover the truth that relevance is about connecting with the lives people lead and not staying in touch with the sound of the flavor of the day.
__________________

__________________
The Slow Loris is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 11:36 AM   #2
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Band-aid
 
An Cat Gav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ohm Sweet Ohm
Posts: 4,117
Local Time: 07:00 AM
"In short, it feels like the band that became the greatest in the world by leading has fallen off its perch thanks, in part, to a decision to follow"

This is similar to my 2nd favourite band, Kraftwerk who with Techno Pop started to become followers of trends rather than trendsetters.
__________________

__________________
An Cat Gav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 11:40 AM   #3
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Nick66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Rum Tum Tugger is a Curious Cat...
Posts: 6,602
Local Time: 07:00 AM
Oh fuck right off.

What a wank.
__________________
Nick66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 02:05 PM   #4
Acrobat
 
Iggy Fizz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: A planet far, far away
Posts: 471
Local Time: 11:00 PM
Still, I always hope they’ll try. I’ll always wonder what might happen if they piled into a panel van, packed only the equipment that would fit in a trailer, and spent a year doing unannounced gigs in small clubs across Donald’s Trump’s America. Maybe call it the “Listening Tour.”

this sounds like a great idea. where do I sign up.
__________________
Iggy Fizz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 03:57 PM   #5
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 57,900
Local Time: 02:00 AM
There are a few things wrong

1. This isn't must read
2. Of course a band 40 years in isn't going to get a lot of new fans
3. The 2000s work, like it or not, made a ton of new fans for this band well past the natural expiration date of rock bands

The article should say that they've hurt their legacy by attempting to stay relevant when it was clear that those days are now over. That would be must read.

This just sucks.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 04:30 PM   #6
Blue Crack Addict
 
DaveC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: on some weirdo rap shit
Posts: 17,740
Local Time: 02:00 AM
#hottake
__________________
DaveC is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 04:57 PM   #7
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Nick66's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: The Rum Tum Tugger is a Curious Cat...
Posts: 6,602
Local Time: 07:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
There are a few things wrong

1. This isn't must read
2. Of course a band 40 years in isn't going to get a lot of new fans
3. The 2000s work, like it or not, made a ton of new fans for this band well past the natural expiration date of rock bands

The article should say that they've hurt their legacy by attempting to stay relevant when it was clear that those days are now over. That would be must read.

This just sucks.
Exactly.

U2 has accomplished more, with more longevity, than just about anyone. At a minimum, they're in elite company. The expectations people have of this band, and this stage of their career, are just whacked.
__________________
Nick66 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-14-2018, 06:23 PM   #8
Acrobat
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Posts: 348
Local Time: 06:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick66 View Post
Exactly.

U2 has accomplished more, with more longevity, than just about anyone. At a minimum, they're in elite company. The expectations people have of this band, and this stage of their career, are just whacked.
There are a few solid points that have been made hundreds of times over on this forum before, but the article misses the 6,000 pound elephant in the room - Bono's outspoken political activism, love it or hate it, and absolutely mind-boggling selections of first singles from NLOTH to now have gone as far as anything in sinking this band's relevance. Yes, it sucks that they are perceived as hangers on to trends proffered by underwhelming modern acts like Chainsmokers and OneRepublic when they used to emulate Joy Division, Siouxsie and the Banshees, and The Clash - all of whom were daring and bold for their day. But honestly they were going for hints of familiar aesthetics on JT and AB in a way, whether channeling Dylan or echoing some of the Madchester vibe. Hell, working with Eno, while it is a bit of a trope for a rock act now, was a stab at deeper, continued relevance. It's never not been somewhat about that for them.

Bono is caustic to many people who casually follow this band and downright insufferable to people on the fence, especially with news stories like last week that make him seem like a hypocrite. I wonder myself when that changed, and part of me thinks it began when they actually backed individual politicians, many very polarizing (working with Bush, Obama, Clinton, lionizing Aung San Su Kyi, who is now reviled by most everyone) vice more universal or underpublicized
causes (the siege of Sarajevo, Stop Sellafield, Jubilee 2000). Whatever the case, the band would be best served to channel cause through music, keep it simple, dare to innovate, and push to where they feel excited again, a place I think they generally soar in.
__________________
HansaTonImbiss is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2018, 04:37 AM   #9
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,963
Local Time: 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by HansaTonImbiss View Post

Bono is caustic to many people who casually follow this band and downright insufferable to people on the fence, especially with news stories like last week that make him seem like a hypocrite. I wonder myself when that changed, and part of me thinks it began when they actually backed individual politicians, many very polarizing (working with Bush, Obama, Clinton, lionizing Aung San Su Kyi, who is now reviled by most everyone) vice more universal or underpublicized
causes (the siege of Sarajevo, Stop Sellafield, Jubilee 2000). Whatever the case, the band would be best served to channel cause through music, keep it simple, dare to innovate, and push to where they feel excited again, a place I think they generally soar in.

I don’t think they’ve ever actually “backed” a candidate, and when you talk about under-publicized causes, you have to consider one thing, the entire media landscape has changed. Your entire view of U2(or any other band from that era) if there was 24 hr coverage and social media, may be completely different for better or worst.
__________________
BVS is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2018, 04:51 AM   #10
Refugee
 
JoRu's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Gallifrey
Posts: 1,065
Local Time: 08:00 AM
U2 stayed relevant for so much longer than one should ever expect of a band. They reinvented themselves at least twice (R&H->Achtung Baby, and then Pop->ATYCLB) after what could've been death knells to their relevancy had they screwed up. Their new album, released in their 42nd year, is a modest success by universal standards and astonishing if you look at it in context.

I think the most telling thing for me when it comes to how I feel about it is that, sure they're not super relevant right now and haven't been for a while (feels like the end of the 360 tour was when it truly started feeling that way), but I just can't completely rule out that something they'll do in the future will feel relevant in a positive way again.
__________________
JoRu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2018, 06:58 AM   #11
Blue Crack Addict
 
U2girl's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: slovenija
Posts: 20,985
Local Time: 08:00 AM
No.Other than The Beatles, I don’t think any band in history has ever had a better decade, and I’m not sure even the Fabs themselves were that much greater.

Yeah, no.

At the least mention great 60's bands like Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd or Rolling Stones who have achieved more.
__________________
U2girl is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2018, 07:37 AM   #12
Rock n' Roll Doggie
 
trevgreg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Minnesota, USA
Posts: 3,462
Local Time: 01:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nick66 View Post
The expectations people have of this band, and this stage of their career, are just whacked.
More or less this. On top of that, there's never going to be one thing that makes every single fan happy anymore. At the end of the day, you either like the new songs or you don't. It's really as simple as that.
__________________
trevgreg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2018, 10:11 AM   #13
Blue Crack Distributor
 
Headache in a Suitcase's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Stateless
Posts: 57,900
Local Time: 02:00 AM
The number of people who don't like U2 because of Bono or because of their social stances or their tax thing or whatever is grossly overstated.

The vast majority of people who have issues with these things didn't like U2 to begin with.

Their chasing of relevance long past their expiration date has made them appear lame to a younger generation, which has hurt their legacy.

But the olds still love this band, more than they hate them. By a lot.
__________________
Headache in a Suitcase is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2018, 10:28 AM   #14
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
YBORCITY's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: FLA
Posts: 5,240
Local Time: 02:00 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Headache in a Suitcase View Post
The number of people who don't like U2 because of Bono or because of their social stances or their tax thing or whatever is grossly overstated.

The vast majority of people who have issues with these things didn't like U2 to begin with.

Their chasing of relevance long past their expiration date has made them appear lame to a younger generation, which has hurt their legacy.

But the olds still love this band, more than they hate them. By a lot.
__________________
YBORCITY is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2018, 11:51 PM   #15
Rock n' Roll Doggie
VIP PASS
 
Rachel D.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Under a Pile of Words
Posts: 5,969
Local Time: 01:00 AM
Yeah, I'm not reading that. Someone always thinks they have it all figured out and can solve U2’s problems for them. Just enjoy the music (or don’t) and stop whining already; I don’t have any patience for this kind of thing anymore.
__________________

__________________
Rachel D. is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:00 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com