Is It Possible To Listen To U2 Objectively?

[Miggy D]

There's a passage in the novel "White Noise," where two of the main characters are talking about the 'world's most photographed barn,' a supposedly 'perfect' barn that thousands upon thousands of tourists have come from around the world to view and photograph. The two men wonder if anyone will ever be able to make an objective judgement on the barn anymore because it has become something so much bigger than life. Meaning - anyone who was going to view the 'perfect' barn already had the whole mythology of the barn in their mind, and therefore was unable to view it as anything other than just that - perfect.

What I'm getting at here - is it possible for us, or anyone for that matter, to listen objectively to a U2 song/album? I LOVE U2, and anticipate every song and album with passion. So I can't help but wonder if, psychologically, I am predisposed to like their songs. I'm not going to lie - I strongly dislike a few of their songs (Grace, Peace on Earth, Playboy Mansion, and select others). But let's take "Stuck in a Moment," for instance. One reviewer said back in 2000 that the song might not be considered that good at all had another band recorded it. And let's be honest here - if some no-name, upstart band had made the song (identically, to a tee, sans Bono's vocals, of course, but let's assume for argument's sake the vocalist did just as good a job) would it have become a smash? Would it have gotten as much radio play? Would this have cut the mustard with a younger band?

Or has that very phrase - 'U2' - become so legendary that songs that would only be considered 'ordinary' or 'good' if they were produced by other bands, are instead considered 'great' or 'classic'? I'm not challenging all of their songs, God no. Pride, One, WTSHNN, etc...those are all undeniable classics, in my opinion. But you have to wonder about some of them. Would 'Walk On' have gotten as much airplay or goodwill had it been made by an indie upstart? Would 'Zooropa' be held in such high esteem if it were the freshman or sophomore album of another, lesser known group?

Don't misread this post - I like SIAMYCGOO (even if I hate typing the damn title) and Walk On, and I really like Zooropa, along with many, many other U2 works. I just wonder sometimes if, when listening to U2, my ears can ever truly be objective. I think they may in fact be irreversably subjective . I don't mind - if it sounds like great music to these ears, who cares? But it's just something to chew on and hopefully, discuss (lest my poor thread be relegated to the annals of history faster than you can say 'Refresh Button.')

-The Migginator



P.S. - Is it just me or did The Hands That Built America accidentally get underlaid throughout parts of The City of Blinding Lights? Man, someone is going to get chewed out big time once U2 finds out!

 

[follower]

That´s an interesting question and I like your analysis. Guess I can only speak about me, and the answer can only be a "no" in my case, and I must admit that. I can´t help it, but as cheesy as it can sound, U2 songs have been the soundtrack of my life. I have waited eagerly for anything they have put out during almost two decades. I´m utterly, hopelessly subjective when it comes to U2, and guess what? I´m not ashamed of that, but I don´t try to force others to feel the same.

MT

 

[AquariumDrinker]

Great question. I think about this sort of thing a lot: how people are biased toward things they have history with. Like how you cut a friend some slack, but if somebody else did the same thing, it’s just another example of them annoying you.

I can’t listen to U2 subjectively for the same reasons why I don’t think most people can’t listen to them subjectively. The band has such a long history that anything they put out is going to be held up against their past work. The band is stuck in the middle of two issues: 1) is it good music? & 2) is it good U2 music? In reality, only the first question should be relevant, but that’s not the case. If it’s not good U2 music, it may get translated as not good music, in general. Of course, that’s not necessarily the case. On the flip side, sometimes it seems the band is critic proof, because of their past work. It goes something like this: “U2 has done great work before. Let’s find the greatness in the current work.” And once you start looking for it, it becomes a lot easier to find things that point to that greatness.

It’s really a double-edged sword and really the only people who can listen to U2 subjectively are the ones who have never heard them before.

 

[If you shout...]

Great post, "Miggy D!" I know that I, personally, can only be so objective with U2...I'm able to do it up to a certain point, but after a while a good deal of subjectivity will ultimately shine through; for me, at least, it's really unavoidable when all is said and done.

On two other notes, then...

1) DeLillo is a great novelist and White Noise is, without a doubt, one of my favorite contemporary works of American literature; if anybody's listening, you should really read this book and also give the mammoth Underworld (probably THE best contemporary American novel) and the Salinger/Warhol-inspired Mao II .

2) "AquariumDrinker"--a Wilco fan, no? Long live Chicago (bands)!!!

Sorry to get off topic--this is a great post and a great viewpoint on the issue. I think that it can vary from fan to fan and critic to critic, but I think that U2's past is typically a lot more important to listeners than whatever the band is currently producing. I remember a lot of criticism of Pop , for example, being things like, "Oh, it doesn't sound enough like U2..." But it DID sound like U2--they were the ones who made the album...! It just didn't sound like everybody's favorite U2--subjectivity at its very best....aside from, of course, the DeLillo text in question!

 

[iota]

I stopped being a rabid fan after they let me down with Pop. Ever since I've listened objectively, knowing that U2 are perfectly capable of making a crap album in the process of trying so hard not to. If you don't get your hopes up too high, you won't be as disappointed; and you won't have to feign delight at mediocre offerings. The last 2 albums have been mediocre at best. This album is excellent. And it's not just because it's U2, since U2 made the last two. But there is that indefinable something that was missing on Pop and ATYCLB.

 

[follower]

It’s really a double-edged sword and really the only people who can listen to U2 subjectively are the ones who have never heard them before.

So unless I got it all wrong you´re basically saying that the past 19 years of my life simply didn´t exist...now that´s something to thing about...

MT

 

[jick]

I always listen to U2 objectively. My views on POP are quite objective and I am quick to criticize views that are subjective and unsupported when it comes to POP.

Cheers,

J

 

[Folkelig]

I'm sorry to say this, but there is no such thing as objective listening to any kind of music. Just as there is no review in the world that is objective, no journalistic piece that is objective, and so on. Every living man see the world through a perspective that is uniqe. Therefore you will always decode everything according to your own experiences, musical tastes etc.

I think U2 might have had some singles doing better in the charts than they deserved, because they have a history, a name. Just as I think the new single from Robbie Williams would have flopped if it wasn't in fact a Robbie song. I see nothing wrong in this. U2's history and "goodwill" is something they have worked hard for, and as long as they stay ahead of the game, there will be room for these things as well.

Because we know U2, and our experience tells us that every new album might take a couple of listens to grow into, we are cutting them some slack from the beginning, that we wouldn't have done with a band we don't know beforehand. This is not the same as to say that we can't be dissapointed, or dislike some of the things they do. But objective? never.

 

[Layton]

I think one way to be more objective about anything is to expose yourself to a variety of stuff. In U2's case that would mean to listen to alot of other music. I think I've gotten a good handle on U2's strengths and weaknesses over the years because I'm a music fan, not just a U2 fan.

 

[ZeroDude]

music is objective, i listen to alot of stuff, when i like a song by a new band i don't start thinking it's not as good as U2................

 

[JOFO]

But let's take "Stuck in a Moment," for instance. One reviewer said back in 2000 that the song might not be considered that good at all had another band recorded it. And let's be honest here - if some no-name, upstart band had made the song (identically, to a tee, sans Bono's vocals, of course, but let's assume for argument's sake the vocalist did just as good a job) would it have become a smash? Would it have gotten as much radio play? Would this have cut the mustard with a younger band?

I probably wouldn't care for it much, because it would sound too soft and careful from another band I wasn't familiar with. I accept that song because it's from a band whose last album had tunes like "Mofo" and "Miami" on it. That's why I usually accept U2's different phases and attempts at other styles: because there's always other stuff that's great to go back to.

 

[AquariumDrinker]

So unless I got it all wrong you´re basically saying that the past 19 years of my life simply didn´t exist...now that´s something to thing about...

MT

Whoops! I meant "objectively" in that line. I was trying to figure out what you meant with that post and very slowly my blunder dawned on me. What a time to mix-up words.

At least, that's what I think you were getting at.....

 

[kakvox]

I am objective with all music I get my mitts on, except for U2. Oh, do I try, so very hard, to be objective, but because I love their sound so much, I like almost everything they do. I do, however, know when I don't care for a U2 song all that much- I tend to skip over it on the album. With that said, I haven't been skipping over any of the songs on HTDAAB. A good sign!

 

[boosterjuice]

Miggy, I know exactly what your talking about!

When ATYCLB came out, I thought it was the best. I was so blinded by all the hype. 2 years later, I released that I actually didn't like it compared to most other U2 albums. I was lying to myself.
With HTDAAB, I can honestly say that I love the album! I'm not fabricating it like I did last time around.

 

[Tip Top Prince]

I can be objective enough to know what I love, like, kinda like, not-so-like...etc.

I just don't see the need to talk about anything other than the positive aspects of U2.

Some may not find it objective to listen to the same album (HTDAAB) for 2 straight weeks - in the car, shower, at work, at home on the computer - in bed on the discman.... but they can fuck off.

 

[Palace_Hero]

I do my best to be objective with U2. I think the fact that I like the new music but still long for the U2 of the 90's to creep out keeps me balanced.

And while I like the new album, and some songs in particular, I don't think it touches AB, Pop or JT. It is better than UF & ATYCLB though, the former I think is the best comparison as it was an album I didn't love, but had songs I will listen to until the day I die (well, Bad)

However Mercy.. that IS a real classic. I've been very careful with this song, but after listening I think I realise U2 are at their best, raw. Look at them live, U2 have always been phenomenal. Over-porduction weakens their albums I think. Mercy is Raw like Pop and AB IMO, the textures and sounds are there, but they havent used them to make a song seem warm & fuzzy. The production is used to emphasise the feeling of the song. Tough to describe and sounds hypocritical, but production is so important, it must be done right.

Mercy is a raw song, and the lack of 'touching up' makes it better. The Fly represents U2 at their sonic best and sounds so. However stuff like OOTS & SIAMYCGOO have been done up to be feel good sing alongs, and I just dont like this. The emphasis is on making you feel good, not making you ENJOY the actual song.

This whole post is very cockeyed, but I hope atleast someone might understand what I'm trying to say..

EDIT - best way of summing up, U2 is at their best when focusing on the song, not on the listener.

 

[angel_28]

I can be objective enough to know what I love, like, kinda like, not-so-like...etc.

I just don't see the need to talk about anything other than the positive aspects of U2.

Some may not find it objective to listen to the same album (HTDAAB) for 2 straight weeks - in the car, shower, at work, at home on the computer - in bed on the discman.... but they can fuck off.

thats great!....i agree with the first sentence that i'm objective enough to know what i looove , like, not like ect.
But i basically love everything U2 puts out, so yeah i'm very bias when it comes to them.

 

[FullonEdge2]

Who cares??

If you like their music, great!

If you don't, try harder!

 

[Under Current]

Most people here cannot be objective they are blinded by there love for U2 and it's always OMG1111 U2 so RAWKS kekekee I find more objectivity coming from casual U2 fans who aren't worried about being flamed for criticizing. That being said you always come across someone who is unbiased and finds something interesting to say about the songs.

 

[UnforgettableLemon]

Don DeLilo

Sorry, I just wanted to comment on the literary comparison

 

[UnforgettableLemon]

Most people here cannot be objective they are blinded by there love for U2 and it's always OMG1111 U2 so RAWKS kekekee I find more objectivity coming from casual U2 fans who aren't worried about being flamed for criticizing. That being said you always come across someone who is unbiased and finds something interesting to say about the songs.

While I agree that many persons on this board are overtly and somewhat adamanty enthusiastic about the band, most of the regular posters here have some degree of coherency and sophistication when discussing even the most subjective items. So please don't generalize, especially when it's not entirely true. I agree that many of us here are perhaps blinded by enthusiasm, but we don't write like children.

 

[Lisa71]

I can be objective for myself.... meaning I don't automatically assume everything they do it great. But as others have said what one person thinks is awesome someone else may not. It is all a matter of taste. I try not to have expectations when I first sit down to hear a new record or song. Sometimes I'm let down and other times I'm thrilled. I don't blindly LOVE everything they do, but I do always remember it's MY taste if I like or dislike something. It's all about opinions, which some people tend to loose site of. Taste is music, movies or books is always an opinion, not a fact.