Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
there is a Conventional Wisdom about *any* band as big and, almost defintionally because there is a CW, important as U2. everyone checks out what they're doing, even those that hate them. with joshua tree, we had a new greatest band on earth. with R&H, they were children ripping off the giants. with achtung baby, it was that the puritans in the desert had started drinking and talking about sex and damn what a great album and "one" is a song for the ages. with zooropa, they had gone too arty. with pop, they had "sold out" or gone "disco" or been eaten by their own ambition or the album simply wasn't very good. with "all that" the U2 we know and love were back and Bono was back to being a big annoying but with a good heart.
i don't necessarily agree with those summaries, but i think that's a somewhat fair reading of the CW. it's hard to be famous for more than one thing at a time.
in 2001, the CW around "all that" was enormously positive. U2 were being U2, sold a bunch of records, put on an amazing tour, helped American grieve, and closed it out with easily the greatest halftime show in history. enormous good will circles around them now. like in 1987. or 1992. time for a backlash? like in 1988. or 1997. what about 2005? what will the CW be?
my theory: if there's a backlash in the CW, it will be that this album is *too* good. the kind of resentment many people have against the greats who are always successful -- Michael Jordan, Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks, Stefi Graff, Michael Phelps, etc. no one wants a winner to win all the time, and i'm wondering if this album might not be resented for it's awesomeness. as in, "well, how could they not make a great record? they probably have personal masseuses, chefs, and psychologists on call." (i have only heard OOTS, and it almost moves me to tears; i love it so.)
will U2 fall into this category? or will everyone finally accept the fact that they stand shoulder-to-shoulder with The Beatles and The Stones at the absolute pinnacle of popular music?
thoughts?
i don't necessarily agree with those summaries, but i think that's a somewhat fair reading of the CW. it's hard to be famous for more than one thing at a time.
in 2001, the CW around "all that" was enormously positive. U2 were being U2, sold a bunch of records, put on an amazing tour, helped American grieve, and closed it out with easily the greatest halftime show in history. enormous good will circles around them now. like in 1987. or 1992. time for a backlash? like in 1988. or 1997. what about 2005? what will the CW be?
my theory: if there's a backlash in the CW, it will be that this album is *too* good. the kind of resentment many people have against the greats who are always successful -- Michael Jordan, Steven Spielberg, Tom Hanks, Stefi Graff, Michael Phelps, etc. no one wants a winner to win all the time, and i'm wondering if this album might not be resented for it's awesomeness. as in, "well, how could they not make a great record? they probably have personal masseuses, chefs, and psychologists on call." (i have only heard OOTS, and it almost moves me to tears; i love it so.)
will U2 fall into this category? or will everyone finally accept the fact that they stand shoulder-to-shoulder with The Beatles and The Stones at the absolute pinnacle of popular music?
thoughts?
