(12-05-2004) John Waters: Why Don't U2 Disband? - The Guardian*

[Popmartijn]

Hello,

Having read the article again, I can see where John Waters is coming from. No, I don't agree with everything he said, but he has a point. This is also not an article from some critic with sour grapes, but more from someone who is concerned about U2.
Basically, John Waters is saying that, while U2 make good music nowadays, they were once a band that made more than good music. It hinted at the divine. I have his Race Of Angels book and while it sometimes goes a bit over my head, he made a really good indepth analysis of U2 (arguing that they are far more steeped in Irish culture than they know). His chapter about Where The Streets Have No Name still brings goosebumps to me when I'm reading it. Because it talks about 'other place', that hint at the divine and by reading it you can feel that again.

But, he feels that has been missing the past 10 years. While the albums may have been good, may had some great songs on them, they weren't magical to him. Right now, U2 still has some of that aura of making music beyond earthly limits and he wants U2 to be remembered for that and not for the good-not-great music of the later years. His analogy of The Beatles' The White Album is quite well chosen. He considers The White Album the beginning of the end of The Beatles. Two years (and three albums) later, The Beatles were no more. While many consider Let It Be a bit underwhelming (Phil Spector production or not), Abbey Road is considered a great Beatles album. Still, that album has some lesser songs on them (Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Oh Darling!). And almost nobody talks about Yellow Submarine (the album), or Magical Mystery Tour (some great songs, but not coherent enough as an album). But, as I said, 2 years after The White Album The Beatles broke up and so we now have a perfect legacy of them.
On the other hand, there are The Rolling Stones. In some discussions about U2's success and title of 'biggest rock('n roll) group in the world' people deride the Stones, saying they're no longer relevant and haven't made a good album since 1980. True. Exile On Main St. maybe was their pinnacle and subsequent albums were good/really good up until Tattoo You, after which their quality control department got lost. Still, they made some excellent songs after 1981 (Losing My Touch on Forty Licks is wonderful). But for the current generation, they're dismissed as old rockers cashing in on former glories. And cashing in they do, as they can still have some of the highest grossing tours ever.

Does anyone else sees the similarities here? We want U2 to go on and on, even when they don't make brilliant albums anymore. Suddenly, the fact that they can still top the album charts is reason to dismiss John Waters' article. But we don't accept it from The Stones when they're the highest grossing act in the world, or Bob Dylan when he's considered the best songwriter in the world; they are not relevant anymore. While all John Waters is trying to say is "Don't turn into The Rolling Stones! Quit when you still have this positive image of your legacy. Sometimes it is better to burn out than to fade away."

Why do Nirvana still top "Best Of" lists? Or Jimi Hendrix? They have a clear legacy, three (at times) brilliant studio albums and a huge influence on the music scene. The Rolling Stones are now being remembered for the wrinkles on Keef and Mick's faces, their enormo tours and those awful albums in the Eighties, not for Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile On Main St. and the fact they brought the blues to white rock 'n roll.

However, to go with the line of reasoning of John Waters you have to believe (too) that Achtung Baby was U2's last brilliant record. And that's where I disagree.

C ya!

Marty

 

[Matthew_Page2000]

A lot of people loved Water's Race of Angels U2 book but I've always found him excruciating. I love U2 as much as anyone but Waters made a mountain out of a relative molehill in Race of Angels.
I sympathize with the Interferencer above who found himself rolling his/her eyes while reading this review. I did a lot of eye rolling when I read Waters book.

 

[angelordevil]

The thing that bugs me most about the negative reviews is not the fact that they are negative of the music, it's that they are condemning the people and personalities in the band.

There's a sense from some of the strongly-worded critics, like this guy, that U2 have betrayed their original mission statement, and created some sort of criminal act. What I really think is happening is that U2 are evolving, just as they have always done -- but certain critics, who maybe have a youthful connection to a particular u2 era, refuse to evolve with them.

It begs the question: who's acting like the real peter pan?

The other thing is, U2 have always done exactly the opposite of what people expect. Instead of making merry with Wham! and Duran Duran in the 80's, they created the most ethereal, spiritual, folk-meets-rock music in history. It was in the 90's, of course, when U2 made their own dance beats, just as "grunge" was almost becoming a copy-righted trademark.

Right now, everyone EXPECTS U2 to sing these kick-arse, anti-everything commercial, left-wing political numbers, but instead, they're coming at us with something more -- something deeply personal.

And when you think about it, when you think about the war in Iraq, the AIDS crisis, the two-faced side of the church, the rise of depression, and the trouble with the environment -- they all circle around the same problem: our inability as a species to understand the needs of our neighbour, our fellow human beings.

What we need now is not more premeditated anger and rage--we've got that in spades.

What I need is something more, something personal...something human.

Something U2.

 

[Mac Phisto]

It's only Rock 'n' Roll, man. C'mon.

 

[angelordevil]

It's only Rock 'n' Roll, man. C'mon.

...But I like it

 

[verte76]

The thing that bugs me most about the negative reviews is not the fact that they are negative of the music, it's that they are condemning the people and personalities in the band.

There's a sense from some of the strongly-worded critics, like this guy, that U2 have betrayed their original mission statement, and created some sort of criminal act. What I really think is happening is that U2 are evolving, just as they have always done -- but certain critics, who maybe have a youthful connection to a particular u2 era, refuse to evolve with them.

It begs the question: who's acting like the real peter pan?

The other thing is, U2 have always done exactly the opposite of what people expect. Instead of making merry with Wham! and Duran Duran in the 80's, they created the most ethereal, spiritual, folk-meets-rock music in history. It was in the 90's, of course, when U2 made their own dance beats, just as "grunge" was almost becoming a copy-righted trademark.

Right now, everyone EXPECTS U2 to sing these kick-arse, anti-everything commercial, left-wing political numbers, but instead, they're coming at us with something more -- something deeply personal.

And when you think about it, when you think about the war in Iraq, the AIDS crisis, the two-faced side of the church, the rise of depression, and the trouble with the environment -- they all circle around the same problem: our inability as a species to understand the needs of our neighbour, our fellow human beings.

What we need now is not more premeditated anger and rage--we've got that in spades.

What I need is something more, something personal...something human.

Something U2.

I couldn't have said it better myself. Perfect.

 

[U2girl]

Just check it out what a friend from u2star posted:

'It's hard to describe it other than it's just a very rock and roll album. A bound bass, drums, in its primary colours of guitar, voice..'
The Edge 05/2003

'I just came frome the studio today and it's ridiculius what's going on. Edge is just on fire- he's making the most extraordinary things come out of his guitar. It's astonishing.'
Bono

'I like to try and make as few notes as I can get away with... create as big on effects as I can, to really explore what guitar could and really push the boundaries of guitar in a rock and roll song can sound like'
The Edge

'It's full on, a full throttle record. It's like punk rock from Venus. It is a mad sound the Edge is making.'
Bono

'Edge I must say is doing some extraordinary stuff. It's a guitar record.'
Bono

'Pedal to the metal. It is high energy, joyous rock and roll.'
Bono

'If I were a betting man, I'd put money on a record dedicated to the life force and vitality of a rock band in full flight.'
The Edge

'Our hope is for a harder record focused on the rock side of U2.'
Larry Mullen

'It's going to blow your mind. It's real punk rock.'
Bono

'It's a very full-on rock and roll album.'
Bono

'Right now my instinct is to make a very raw kind of guitar-bass-drums, an album with a lot of attitude and a lot of that kind of life force, the vitality I associate with guitar bands in full flight.'
The Edge

Ummm, those quotes are from 2002, 2003 - maybe very early 2004.

Remember they changed producers which probably changed the direction of the music, also we know that Adam and Larry rejected what(ever it was) they had in October of 2003, Adam quoted as saying "it didn't have enoug hits" and Larry quoted as saying "it had to be said...it just wasn't good enough". Bono and Edge believed they had an album then.

It does not make U2 or Bono liars.
And if you want to whine, at least direct it to the right person.

 

[STING2]

what i think he's getting at is that part of watching U2 grow and mature was to watch them create their own brand of "magic" -- TJT saw them grasping at salvation with it's ethereal, shimmering music, and AB was the opposite end of that poll, turning away form the heavens and looking at the street and using beats and rhythm to simulate that most earthly of activites -- sex -- and taking themselves on another journey in precisely the opposite direction (yet it's still the same journey). he doesn't see them making music in order to make something other than music -- as in, the sounds are a means to access something else. the instruments, back then, and by virtue of their lack of musicianship, were tools they used as an artist would use a typewriter or paint: a means to an end, not an end.

now, U2 can write a perfect tune better than anyone else out there, and i think Waters thinks this is distracting from their original mission (as he saw it). also, Bono's need to remain neutral in politics, lest his all important influence be lessened through any sort of partisan lyric, has neutered some of the band's edge. could he write a BTBS now? an Iraq War update of that song? no, lest it get him barred from Bush's WH. and that's a legitimate reason, but Waters' point is that the music, nay, the message is suffering.

not sure i totally agree. i think the "message" he ascribes to U2, both in the article and in the (really, really brilliant book) is too much for any band to carry, or indeed to have placed on their shoulders.

he wants them to strive for something other than sheer musical brilliance. fair or not, that's what he's on about.

as sheer musical brilliances goes, they've succeded rather ravishingly w/HTDAAB.

It may suprise Waters and yourself that Bono has actually supported a lot of things that the Bush administration has done including many parts of the war on terrorism. As Bono said in Hot Press a few years ago, he is not a pacifist. Writing another "BTBS" in order to satisfy WATERS political views, would indeed be "getting on the treadmill".

After 25 years, everyone has their idea's about what U2 should do in music and where they are or should be politically. But from the very beginning of their career, U2 have been the ones that decided where they would go in both music and politics and that continues to be the case.

U2 are still on their journey, the only thing now is that people like WATERS simply don't understand the band anymore. U2 have evolved, WATERS understanding of U2 has not.

 

[STING2]

he does have a few good points though.

the album is a bit formulatic, and the band does attempt to play it safe.

but this is what happens to most men once they reach 40 years of age.

i think they shoulda dropped some of the filler songs and inserted Mercy in their place, perhaps HTDAAB would have suffered in sales but fart-knocker critics like this would have been salivating a bit more.

db9

There is not filler on HTDAAB! This album is a classic and probably the bands 3rd best ever.

 

[STING2]

You know reading that I actually find myself agreeing with a lot of it.

The last two albums were just exercises in how to write good pop music. There's nothing daring about them, lyrically at least. Musically they're U2 looking at U2. That's not a bad thing, but it's hardly inkeeping with the orginal spirit of the band.

I like HTDAAB, but really what is this album saying??? It's hard when someone you love dies? Please. Relationships can be hard, but lets not upset the kids cause love will win through. Africa, what are we to do?War and terrorism in the middle east...oh where is the love... even Justin had that one down better.

It's not political, its abstractly personal. It has no overriding narrative. If anything lyrically its full of bland takes on traditional U2 themes.

I mean Love and Peace: War is bad, Peace is good. Can't get too angry about it, Mr Bush might be listening. Oh Where is the love??. Bullet the Blue Sky and even Peace on Earth make this look like a kids song. there is no anger here. Four years of war, death and destruction at this is the best Bono can come up with. Call me or I'll call you and we'll sort it out. I think Bono got his and Britney's lyric sheet mixed up, she'll be singing about fighter planes bombing innocent children next. It's a song to make middle america happy while their kids are dying for oil.

Before you flame me. I like the album, there's a lot of good songs on it, but lyrically it's a mess. I think what the writer is trying to say is if they don't have anything new or relevant to say why dilute what they already said by repeating a bland copy of it.

I think you should consider that Bono actually supports a lot of the actions, especially in the war on terror,(not all of them of course, and not the initial invasion of Iraq) of the Bush administration, so one should not be expecting some overt trashing of Bush and his policies to please the liberals in some song. U2 already wrote BTBS and Peace On Earth. In writing a song about "Love And Pease", it would be a mistake to inject some type of anger into the song just to please a few Bush Bashers or whatever.

This album to me is perhaps U2's third best album. There is plenty of new stuff on this album, but people like to make analogies with past albums all the time. People did that with POP, saying "Please" was a descendent of the War album and "Gone" a descendent of the October album.

I think there is a lot of new stuff covered on this album. There is a number of stuff on this album I have never heard U2 really do before. Thats why the first time I listened to it, I was like "what the hell is this?".

This album is amazing and many music critics out there think it is U2's best album ever, to include the writer of the book "Until The End of The World", Edna Gunderson of USA Today, and another writer for another magazine that has slipped my mind at the moment.

More importantly, the band feel this is perhaps their best album ever, and yes, I do respect their opinion on this, I think they could be right. But right now, I would say its their 3rd of 4th best ever.

 

[STING2]

Hello,

Having read the article again, I can see where John Waters is coming from. No, I don't agree with everything he said, but he has a point. This is also not an article from some critic with sour grapes, but more from someone who is concerned about U2.
Basically, John Waters is saying that, while U2 make good music nowadays, they were once a band that made more than good music. It hinted at the divine. I have his Race Of Angels book and while it sometimes goes a bit over my head, he made a really good indepth analysis of U2 (arguing that they are far more steeped in Irish culture than they know). His chapter about Where The Streets Have No Name still brings goosebumps to me when I'm reading it. Because it talks about 'other place', that hint at the divine and by reading it you can feel that again.

But, he feels that has been missing the past 10 years. While the albums may have been good, may had some great songs on them, they weren't magical to him. Right now, U2 still has some of that aura of making music beyond earthly limits and he wants U2 to be remembered for that and not for the good-not-great music of the later years. His analogy of The Beatles' The White Album is quite well chosen. He considers The White Album the beginning of the end of The Beatles. Two years (and three albums) later, The Beatles were no more. While many consider Let It Be a bit underwhelming (Phil Spector production or not), Abbey Road is considered a great Beatles album. Still, that album has some lesser songs on them (Maxwell's Silver Hammer, Oh Darling!). And almost nobody talks about Yellow Submarine (the album), or Magical Mystery Tour (some great songs, but not coherent enough as an album). But, as I said, 2 years after The White Album The Beatles broke up and so we now have a perfect legacy of them.
On the other hand, there are The Rolling Stones. In some discussions about U2's success and title of 'biggest rock('n roll) group in the world' people deride the Stones, saying they're no longer relevant and haven't made a good album since 1980. True. Exile On Main St. maybe was their pinnacle and subsequent albums were good/really good up until Tattoo You, after which their quality control department got lost. Still, they made some excellent songs after 1981 (Losing My Touch on Forty Licks is wonderful). But for the current generation, they're dismissed as old rockers cashing in on former glories. And cashing in they do, as they can still have some of the highest grossing tours ever.

Does anyone else sees the similarities here? We want U2 to go on and on, even when they don't make brilliant albums anymore. Suddenly, the fact that they can still top the album charts is reason to dismiss John Waters' article. But we don't accept it from The Stones when they're the highest grossing act in the world, or Bob Dylan when he's considered the best songwriter in the world; they are not relevant anymore. While all John Waters is trying to say is "Don't turn into The Rolling Stones! Quit when you still have this positive image of your legacy. Sometimes it is better to burn out than to fade away."

Why do Nirvana still top "Best Of" lists? Or Jimi Hendrix? They have a clear legacy, three (at times) brilliant studio albums and a huge influence on the music scene. The Rolling Stones are now being remembered for the wrinkles on Keef and Mick's faces, their enormo tours and those awful albums in the Eighties, not for Beggars Banquet, Let It Bleed, Sticky Fingers, Exile On Main St. and the fact they brought the blues to white rock 'n roll.

However, to go with the line of reasoning of John Waters you have to believe (too) that Achtung Baby was U2's last brilliant record. And that's where I disagree.

C ya!

Marty

Thing here, is that I see the magic and brilliance of U2 today, while I can find things about many of the 80s albums to criticize that perhaps WATERs does not.

While its true that the Rolling Stones have the highest grossing tours, they have not had a big selling album since 1981. U2 on the other hand is KING when it comes to album sales by a band in this new century. More importantly, critics, fans, and the band themselves love the work they do currently. When was the last time a Rolling Stone album won 7 Grammy awards?

Waters idea that U2 have lost the magic is simply false. Waters seems to be one of those fans who are locked into the past and are blind to the magic of U2 today. I've seen this happen to often and not just with U2. An artist goes through a really remarkable period, and some fans and critics get so tied to that period that they are unable to see the magic that artist produces today.

 

[STING2]

The main problem with this review is that he's stating that HTDAAB isn't as great as past U2 works, like JT.

But what if, as a fan, you don't think JT is all that great?

By now it should be no secret that I only semi-like JT. I consider it the best album of 1987 and one of the best of the 80's. However, compared to U2's overall body of work, it ranks rather low. I feel it is a fine-tuning of the songs on UF. I feel it is very preachy - all talk and no show (this point is important as Bono is infinitely more active now, and not wasting time just "dreaming"). And I feel it has the worst song U2 ever made on it.

Therefore, comparisons to JT don't do much for me.

But what about comparisons to AB? AB is my favorite U2 album and arguably the best album of the 90's. However, is it truly this "radical departure" that we've all claimed it to be?

For many years, I nodded along - U2 had "reinvented" themselves. But now that it's 13 years since the release of AB, I can clearly see that the music itself is not that radical. Sure, there are changes: Bono didn't scream his lyrics and at times, even spoke or whispered them; U2 created more "catchy" rocking songs; U2 created more "fun" songs, even though they all had a message. However, this is still very much a U2 album - and we heard hints of these songs on UF ("Pride"), JT ("Exit") and R&H ("God Part II"). What really changed was U2's image and how they approached the media.

With this in mind, is HTDAAB that different? Probably not, and herein lies the author's main argument for why U2 should disband - the music isn't "different enough". But is this reason enough for such a strong statement (disbandment)? What is wrong with U2 sounding like U2?

We've heard U2 try on the punk sound with the first 3 albums, they tried on a more ambient sound with the second 3 albums, they tried on more "industrial", techno rock sounds on the third 3 albums. Now they are experimenting with their own sound - what makes U2 sound like U2. U2 seems to work in threes, we are only in the middle of this phase.

The ultimate irony of this negative review is that AB has songs like "One" that sound like prior U2. "Zooropa" has "Stay". "Pop" has songs like "If God Will Send...". A chunk of JT's work could have been on UF. And even some of UF's work could have appeared on "War".

U2 is always transitioning - taking part of their past and bringing it to the present. There sound is evolving, sometimes in large jumps, sometimes in small. While ATYCLB and HTDAAB may sound similar to past works, I can't imagine a "Stuck...", "Fast Cars" or "Love & Peace..." on other U2 albums. U2 didn't have the maturity to write "Walk On", "Kite", "Sometimes...", of "Miracle Drug" years ago. As eloquently stated in other posts, this is a VERY mature album, something U2 couldn't have done at any time in their pasts.

Admittedly, a weakness of HTDAAB is that it's a fine-tuning of many past U2 sounds, barring a few exceptions. But isn't this true of JT? Isn't this true of "War"? Isn't this true of AB? Don't many of those albums contain "fine-tunings" of past works? Why was it acceptable then but not now?

In other words, I feel this review has no merit.

It's O.K. to not like the album. Music is incredibly subjective - IMO, it's beyond review (despite the plethora of critics out there). However, to suggest a disbandment because an album isn't to your liking is asinine. It suggests that this critic's ego is even worse that Bono's.

 

[dazzledbylight]

thanks particularly to aord, pride, irvine,BRG & popm for intersting comments.

now, what to say..... while I don't seem to have the breadth of being able to analize & track u2's history, music etc [tho i've been a serious fan for about 23 yrs] the way some of you have done so in clear, empassioned & interesting ways- let me trot out a few ideas.

I was already waaayyy into rock music recorded and live(!) [and a lover of music in general, while not all 'genres' all the time], when u2 came along.

My absolute favs were/are before u2 [and continued on] The Who, Bruce Springsteen, Patti Smith Band/Group & Television. U2 kept climbing with each record, and joined that pantheon for me around UF/JT.

Besides the sometimes intriguing, mysterious, outfront, beautiful lyrics [and there's some lyrics i either just don't get, or just don't like] of u2; their wonderful music- powerful, lyrical, melodic, anthemic, staggering, hurricainish at times etc there was/is: the whole issue of performing Live!

sending this in, before i get bounced out timewise...will continue

gonna talk about The Who first because it's through their live sensibility that i more or less became a fan of U2's. ALso the otheer bands I mentioned [with the posible exception of Television] also had/have similar attitudes even if their music sounds different from each other.

Pete Townshend {the Who} wrote over the decades [as well as being interviewed] many words on this aspect of music- the engery [or lack of] between performer & audience.

The Who had in their music [and lyrics]somewhat seperately at times, other times some of these elements interweaving together in the same album, even the same song- pop-type sounds & sensibilites, mod sound, raw power, the anthemic, deeply sensitive and deeply beautiful.

Pete was always trying when he/they particularly in their best moods- to ramp up this live energy, this give & take and in a sense take themseleves and us [audience] almost 'elsewhere'. Yeah, he would speak of even transcendence in their music esp when playing live.

"Life House" the original music/ideas [aborted film-live concert project] what you found mostly on the original Who's Next / Odds& Sods records [mostly combined into the redone, expanded WN] was an Science Fiction/Rock Film dealing with Music & transcendence in the end. There was other socio-poliical stuff along with presient ideas along lines of The Internet as well!

Now on to U2~~~

The first live review [a Lodon gig, pre-usa touring ] I ever read about them appeared in a modestly distributed [major US cities, great Britian & Continental Europe], but seminal music paper/magazine called New York Rocker covering from about 1976 till ? 82? the Punk/New Wave scene in NYC, as it then expanded out into other US cities/ regions, England, Europe etc, and alt/new music.

"...powerful, heartfelt, connection to the audience, anthemic....if these guys can keep it together they could go all the way to stadium level...", is what the then Editore of NYR said about U2. Well, that definately intrigued me.

Then I guess I heard IWF/OOC somewhere between that review and one of U2's Very First Pre-tour Interviews with an American Music Magazine journalist/editor {NYR- Andy Schwartz}, though it was printed post u2's first 'exploritory' tour of the usa [NYC, Boston & ? where else in late 80].

I definatley was impressed with IWF/OOC! Then i read this kind of things from this above-mentioned article/interview... {it's one of the few precious U2 rarities I own}...

They talked about: performers giving to the audience and getting that engery back '...we push our audience...', '...we give to our audience...', 'we went to ____ show and we saw painted up faces [audience], but the audience wasn't prepared to give to the band, or each other...'. 'u2 is a performance band...'

They mentioned how The Who [and Stones] were performance bands.

Also [and another green go! flag of Pay Attention] u2 talked of the power & sensitivity in the Who's muusic that The Who were masters of . Both of these elements that I treausured deeply about the Who and the others of my favs mentioned were very important aspects to me, and kept me going with U2- even if I didn't lke all the songs on any one given album. There were always seveal songs that were worth 'the price of admission'. JT i guess became the one up till that point, that had the most of that quality of music/lyrics that makes it a Master Classic.

WHen I see U2 Live their performances can get to a transcendant atmosphere/state, and thats even from sitting in the kind of prettyy far back, crummy to awful seats me & my friends have had all the times we've seen them live- all these 20 years.

So to me I continue to get/recieve a kind of transcenedence from them live. I don't know if this has any relationship to what this Mr. Waters is talking about but it's superb 'enough' for me.
------------------------------------------------------------

And as a muti-medium visual artist myself, what's wrong with permutation as well as new stuff. I love subtlety and well as buig, new/different dirctions in an artists work-- visual or musical.

 

[dazzledbylight]

finishing up........

So far I've only heard these songs from HTDAAB....V, OOS, ABOY, SYCMIOYO & COBL.

I've had my fav u2 albums as AB
JT
and ATYCLB in 3rd

Even if I didn't like any of the other songs in HTDAAB [i can't believe i won't be very impressed with at least 2 more at the quality they are achieving my album order would probably now be

AB
HTDAAB
JT
ATYCLB 4th and JT & ATYCLB might exchange places from time to time

I think HTDAAB is that superb!
---------------------------------------------


Hi BRG,

Well, as a member of the 'over 30' [quite over] u2 fan continium, I do at times have that 20's 'firebrand' inside me. But i have responsibliies, and difficulties I really DIDN't Have at 20, so that energy gets tempered by my current reality. LuckllyI also had this other major aspect {see below} to me . Coulodn't be 'angry' all the time. I used to pass a pair of Socialist Worker's Party types with their newspapersin the first floor hallway in one of my colleage's buildings several times a week. Oh, they always looked soooo dour. SHite, they could of been the lyrical doppleganger for COBL's chorus!...."oh, you look so doooouuuurrr tonite!"
EEEwww, I didn't want anything to do with them.

But also have [cetainly not always] that joyous sense of expansiveness often in the Spring & Summer i had when I was a kid/teen, and I have maintained my very strong/dynamic 'sense of wonder' through all these [esp last 10 more difficult than i though i'd get caught in<situational, not criminal sense>] decades on. THIs wonder & joy that can go to transcendant levels without music even...has kept me going [along with the people & places I treasure].

ANd i am still involved in political-socio things, so that continues as well [where the firebrand of my teens/early 20's semi-activism emerged and resides still].

 

[AtomicBono]

The thing that bugs me most about the negative reviews is not the fact that they are negative of the music, it's that they are condemning the people and personalities in the band.

There's a sense from some of the strongly-worded critics, like this guy, that U2 have betrayed their original mission statement, and created some sort of criminal act. What I really think is happening is that U2 are evolving, just as they have always done -- but certain critics, who maybe have a youthful connection to a particular u2 era, refuse to evolve with them.

It begs the question: who's acting like the real peter pan?

The other thing is, U2 have always done exactly the opposite of what people expect. Instead of making merry with Wham! and Duran Duran in the 80's, they created the most ethereal, spiritual, folk-meets-rock music in history. It was in the 90's, of course, when U2 made their own dance beats, just as "grunge" was almost becoming a copy-righted trademark.

Right now, everyone EXPECTS U2 to sing these kick-arse, anti-everything commercial, left-wing political numbers, but instead, they're coming at us with something more -- something deeply personal.

And when you think about it, when you think about the war in Iraq, the AIDS crisis, the two-faced side of the church, the rise of depression, and the trouble with the environment -- they all circle around the same problem: our inability as a species to understand the needs of our neighbour, our fellow human beings.

What we need now is not more premeditated anger and rage--we've got that in spades.

What I need is something more, something personal...something human.

Something U2.

Well-said! That's the thing about U2 - they do their own thing. They march to the beat of their own drummer and his name is Larry Right now, angry anti-right music is in - you've got punk bands like Green Day, rappers like Eminem, and even established artists like REM making anti-Bush, anti-war music. It would make sense, especially with such an album title, for U2 to make a very political record. It would do well since it's the "in" thing right now. But they didn't - there are political moments (Love and Peace, Crumbs) but the record as a whole is much more personal...and at the same time, universal. Think of all the nü-metal bands - Staind, Three Days Grace, Smile Empty Soul, ect. - making these songs bitching and moaning about their parents. I swear every song I hear on the "alternative" rock stations is some guy yelling about how horrible his parents are. Then you've got U2, prolly 20 years their seniors, with the piece of heaven dubbed "Sometimes You Can't Make It On Your Own." I don't know about you, but I'd take Sometimes over any of those angry bands' entire song catalouges... youthful rebellion is good when it's youthful rebellion. Maturity isn't a bad thing. More people should listen to U2.

 

[jammin909]

BluRmGrl your post(page 4) is awesome.

Anyhow I know how fun it is to read these negative reviews that really get the blood flowing but....think about it. These people that reviews these cd's are nobodys. Theyre either old "has-beens" or losers who most likely never accomplished anything in their life. There job is to write reviews about people they most likely envy. U2 are happy making the music theyre making and I am more then grateful to listen. Thank you U2 and screw you to the critics.

 

[EmilyBono]

How many times have U2 heard this? After every album I bet, there's always gonna be a naysayer out there. As in the I'm disappointed with everything U2 has ever done thread -"This album is shite! They'll never top (insert fav album here)." And thank god they have never listened! It's not to say that the best is still to come (but you never know), but just because an album isn't Achtung Baby, JT, or whatever, that doesn't mean they should just give up. Maybe career-wise, now would be a good time to call it quits, but I believe the band still loves everything they are doing - writing, recording, and probably most of all touring. I didn't get into U2 until 1998. It was great to have all their older albums to discover, but the even better thing was that I had new stuff to look forward to! I've only been to one show, and I don't want them to quit b/c I've got many more concerts to go to

 

[Teta040]

Ohhh brother, I had forgotten about this guy. I am still waiting for Robert Hilburns of the La Times; review, and I can bet that while he is one of the band's certified "propagandists" , he must also have the same concerns as Waters. Hilburn, like Waters, is honest. And I have respect for him. He does not come from that common breed of irish journalist who works from the traditional Irish sense of national lack of self-esteem and feels the need to trash their own. He actually had the guts to break forth from the pack of Irish media and priase the band whole-hearledly for what they are (or were.)

Where do I start? What chapter of "Race of Angels" do I view this review in the light of? (Anyone who had not read his book, drop everything and RUN to the nearest bookstore and buy it NOW. Having read, I can safely say, every book written about this band pubished in English over the past 23 years, and every article too, I can without a doubt say that his book is one of THE four best publications, and some of THE best writing, EVER written about the band. In terms of analyis of U2's' place in the world, simply the best. The other three being the late Pimm La Parra's "U2 Live: A Concert Documentary", Bill Flanagan's tour diary "At The End of The World", the recent "Get Up Off Your Knees: Preaching the U2 Catalog" (the groundbreaking analyis of the band from a spiritual perspective...written by a bunch of preachers who have used U2 in their sermos..more info on this book can be found on the site U2sermons.blogspot.com.)



Where do I view this I think that part of the problem here is that: 1)contrary to people's belief, U2 have always existed in a musical vacuum. They began as slipstream--with their own sound and ethos, existing in outer space..and now they have come full circle, existing again as such.

It all boils down to what Water's defenition of "The Fifth Province" is. (I'm not going to go into a defenition of what this is. it is a complicated concept, more of a spiritual state than anything, and you'd have to read his book to begin to grasp it. U2's place in Irish history, world cultural history, pop musical history, what? All of these.) He likes us to think after reading his book that the Fifth Province is a state that the band are able to reach only by being able tot tap into elements of whatever is floating around in pop culture at the time..that the band is able to reach this "higher state" only by having its collective feet in the real ground. It is ironic that this most perceptive of journos seems to think that U2's highest accomplishment was The Joshua Tree...a common mistake. I would argue the opposite. The band are more "in touch" with Divine by staying true to their own strange universe.

In the book he cites a passage from a book by Seamus Heaney, in which that author is said to have oberved, in his opinion, the entire modern eveolutionary history of the Irish tongue enacted in 2 sentences of a little Irish boy's exam paper. "The swallow is a migratory bird," this little boy recited. "He have a roundy head."

In the first, the stilted, unnatural, "industrial" metallic clang as the English phrases spiked the air; followed by the natural,organic, lilting homeliness and poetry of the boy's natural way of speech. Heaney made the comment that this recital was unprompted and that all the hundreds of years of colonization by the English could not kill the boy's natural ways of speech, even if the phrases itself were uttered in the colonizing tongue. And therein lies the eternal triumph.....that the conquers will never really win.


We are now in the process of U2 rediscovering the "he have a roundy head" aspects of their music. And while that may be musically inferior becuase it does not appear to tap into any external current cultural source, it is in a sense a triumph. Of sorts. The band has always kept its ears open, and played off of whatever was out there. This was a conscious decision they made when they picked up a harmonica and a slide guitar on JT. In a sesne they "polluted" themselves, and we have been grateful for it. They tapped into the bourgeoning hip-hop scene and brought it to the white masses with AB in 1991, before anyone else did (and have recived suprsisingly little credit for that.) This is their most glorious musical achievement, if you count this kind of achievment as being the most signifigant. I don't.
But ask yourself now: what, realistically, is going out there that is musically exciting, that the band can tap into? After hip=hop you had the explosion of grunge, which was basically punk imported BACK into America after 25 yrs (everyone forgets the Ramones in NYC were the REAL fathers of punk.) The band consciiously rejcted this model just as they deliberatley chose not to follow the Stones model of strealing the blues in the 60's ( And which every band has in a sense thus done therafter.) And in the mid'90's the "second wave"of post-grunge bands such as the Smashing Pumpkins, who were perhaps the ones most influnced openly by U2. This corresponded with the "Cool Britannia" explosion on the other side of the Atlantic with the faux-Beatles inspired Oasis , and later Radiohead and their imitators. I personally think Liam and noel chose the BEatles as their primiary influence to make a political poijt about Britian's liberation from the doom of the Thatcher-Major era. (And interestingly, it is Oasis, NOT the Beatles, that OOTS inspired by...I can hear some Liamisms in there.)

But both of these scenes have effectively played out and blown their course. In the US, first becuase of the advent of Britney pop and in this decade by the strangulation of the rules imposed on radio by Clear Channel (and this more than anyhting makes me fear for the long-term relevance and even existenceof pop music in the US. This isn't like disco..this is a STRUCTURAL change that comes from above.) And in Britian..well, I don't know. A sense of political stasis more than anything.

With the artifically imposed and premature fragmentation and thus impending death of anything resembling a "mass culture" in the US, the home of rock music, and the lack of means for up and coming artists to be influenced and exposed to new ideas from other countries such as existed even 6 or 7 yrs ago, and talent hunters in the US descending like locusts within 6 months on whatever embryo of a music "scene" developing anywhere in the US --the NYC sene that brought you the White Stripes et al has, IMHO, has deid a premature death--what hope is there of U2 ever being able to tap back into the mainstream? If expirimentation is the essence of Greatness", how can they be relevant? How can anybody? We now operate in a muscial climate that resembles the 1950s--when rock acts play to hordes of screaming 14 yrs olds and aren't expected to have a career of more than 5 yrs or 3 albums, take your pick. (Look at the programming of MTV. It was the BEatles who smashed that--but the mechaninism for finding an act like the Batles and thier rebelllion--and U2's, 20 yrs ago--no longer exist.) It has come full circle. The problems is that U2 have a long-term career mentality and are operating in a changed musical climate in which new acts are expected to bloe out quickly and behave as such. There is a mental conflict/clash going on here, in the band's creative impulse. They are swimming gainst a rising tide of irrelavance behind them, whule yhey are trying to part the waters and make an old -fashioned wave in their wake. Does that make sense? Please excuse typos, too, I'm very tired..it;s midnight here.)

So Waters is wrong. U2's retreat, into the "roundy head" state of mind is an act of rebellion, a starement that we still have an origional voice. There is nowhere else for them to musically go, and we also have a growing horder of repoters who cite thier age and not doing anything embarrassing. And here we come to the second dilemma.


2) What, then, is U2's relvance in today's world? I think waters is caught up in the dilemma that alll the critics now face. there has nver been a band like them. They have just had the biggest sales weekof thier career. They are "hot" without being "hip" and gaining new fans all the time. I think it is his reluctance to try to understand the dicotomy of Bono's unique place in polular culture that bugs me. Like the Time and Newsweek said, he has made out of himself a new creation..a pop figure with REAL power.

How many other pop cultural figures have had such intimate, personal access to the REAL global titans of power> John Lennon's most political statement was the "Bed-Ins for Peace" but that was political statement that never went beyond the level of the media. Bob Marley reached that spiritual state, and joined the hands of the warring leaders of Jamaica onstage, but he remained a domestically political figure. Bono just may be the first true "global" figure, in that he links, on a global scale, political, musical and cultural power. he speaks , and walks when his words ring hollow. Leaders quake in their shoes. Even Bush now realizes that it is poliitcally dangerous to criticize this guy (firing Paul O'Neal because he can't stop spouting to Congress about clean drinking water for Africa is easier. Oh yes, it wasn't his economic performance that did it. Read the literature. As Micheal Corloene said: "Who's being niave, Kay?").

I cal this the "fast Cars" argument...I am ramblimg on and on....

Maybe I'll continue this later

 

[mysticchild]

I have never heard of this writer, I am from America and i am so out of touch being here. But i do know, that U2 has succeeded in making a huge hit on their record. So to say that u2 should dismantle is a pretty sad statement to make. To be the age that they are and to reach out to so many different ages is incredible. I think they are doing just great and i wish for them to succeed until it just isn't meant to be anymore. Apparently they are still made to be. U2 4 Ever

 

[Teta040]

John Waters has been for the past 20 yrs or so one of Irleand's most famous and influencial print journalists. Kind of like John Pareles of the NY TImes here, but he wrotes about more than the Arts.

He has written, in the early 90's, what even today remains the only real in-depth study of u2 from an irish perpective that really is DEEP and counts. Even the only one period. No American or European or other country's journaist has wriiten a book like his. Parts of It will haunt you forever, and even bring you to tears.

I wish media figures would write scholarly, intellectual books about musical acts over here. he is the only one who has tried to place U2 within the cultural framework of their own country. His book "Race of Angels:The Genesis of u2" examines much more than that however. it is an entire microgonism of modern Irish history--political, social, cultural, and places u2 in that context.

It is recquired reading for EVERY fan.

This guy is different from all other media figures who cover u2 and even if you do not agree with his review (I don't with much of it), beleive me, his review needs to be treated as very important and with much respect.

 

[TheFirstBigW]

If Waters thinks that U2's new music is not great because it is playing it safe politically, then he should take a look at the fate of recent music like Eminem's song Mosh, which already feels like yesterday's news in the wake of the U.S. election.

None of U2's music is classic because it reflects the times.
U2's music is classic because it transcends the times.

 

[Aardvark747]

I HATE THIS FUCKIN PAPER!

 

[financeguy]

I wish media figures would write scholarly, intellectual books about musical acts over here.

Actually, they have - try Greil Marcus's "Mystery Train" about the history of rock and roll in the US.

Water's book, though excellent, owes a strong debt to Greil Marcus's writings.

That aside I do agree with much of what you have said.

 

[anitram]

I've not read his book, but now I really want to find a copy.

 

[Teta040]

Actually,FinanceGuy, I have read Marcus. A long time ago. though I like his book about the Clash better. The problem with Marcus is that he seems to be very selective in the acts he favors. (Well..aren't we all...)


Though it must be said, Waters has a much easier time. America is too big, too diverse, for there to ever be a single act encompassing the whole and keep everybody happy.

I suppose, in cinema terms, Ken Burns's "The Civil War" is the only thing that comes close. That and "Leaves of Grass"...

 

[Bono's shades]

This guy doesn't sound like someone with an axe to grind. He sounds like a very intelligent writer who genuinely loves U2 but is a little alarmed at the direction they seem to be headed in. I certainly don't agree with everything he says, especially comparing Bono's political work to a bored husband's golf hobby or whatever it was he called it but as far as the music itself goes, he reflects my own views as a long-time fan who wonders if U2 is ever going to release anything that will blow everyone's mind again instead of just making safe (albiet often very good) music. I really can't say I want to them to quit yet because it would suck to never hear anything new from them again, but there's also something to be said for quitting while you are still somewhat ahead. I guess my hope is U2 will be able to sense when they truly have nothing new to say and call it a day when it happens.