silvrlvr said:
Yes, but Dr. Muse, those albums were made in the last decade, when the music business had not become as market-oriented, digital-oriented and commerical tie-in oriented as it is ow. I don't think you can argue that ATYCLB or HTDAAB are "albums that U2 wanted to make and the mainstram accepted them." Both those albums were an attempt to appeal to the mainstream, or at least the mainstream in alternative music, since the mainstream is Kelly Clarkson and Justin Timberlake.
I would argue just the opposite.
Yes, the last two albums are a TAD more accessible, but they are hardly mainstream, even in alternative music. Mainstream is dominated by an odd version of R&B, rap and the combination of both. Country music is still wildly popular. And while there may be a token hit like "Mr. Brightside" or "American Idiot" by rock music, most of it today's music is not rock.
I recall an article where the Edge relayed a comment from his daughter after she heard HTDAAB. She said that it doesn't sound like anything that's on the radio, in a worried tone.
When I heard that, I was estatic. JT was nothing like the other music on the radio, when pop music (like Timberlake and Clarkson) and big hair metal bands dominated. AB was nothing like other music on the radio, when grunge quickly dominated the scene. "Pop" was nothing like other music on the radio, which was dominated by Spice Girls, early N'Sync, Hanson and the like. So once again, U2 produced an album nothing like anything on the radio, and once again, they came away with a hit album and some hit songs.
If HTDAAB is a bit more accessible, I would also argue that songs like "With or Without You", a slow love song which always are big hits, was also accessible. I would argue that a simple 4/4 beat rocking song like "Desire" was accessible. I would argue that "Mysterious Ways" or another slow love song, "One" were accessible. What made them stand out is that there weren't many songs like that on the radio. This was true for "Beautiful Day" and this was true for "Vertigo".
Going back to the overall topic, I have to agree with the person that said music is more "disposable" now. Gone are the times where a label let an artist grow. Now, labels expect instant hits. They *might* allow one album to grow, provided there was at least mild success, but if the second doesn't soar, that's it - contract over.
Coldplay has U2's mellow side down perfectly. Unfortunately, I have yet to see Coldplay do U2's rocking side - which have generated quite a few U2 hits. I have yet to see Coldplay really mix up their sound and take some chances. If they do, maybe... but right now, no.
Green Day came back big with "American Idiot". Unfortunately, the sound is exactly the same as "Dookie", released 10 years earlier. I haven't heard Green Day take chances and evolve. Their sound appealed once in the mid-90's and it appealed again 10 years later. I wouldn't be surprised if Green Day once again fades away only to have some hit in another 5 or so years. They've also been around a fairly long time. The Beatles' career was over by the time Green Day scored their second monster album! So I feel the time has pretty much passed Green Day.
Linkin Park may change their sound, but I'm not sure if they can score big again as they did in the 90's.
And the other bands may have the respect of their peers, but from a hit song poiint of view, they were more like one- or two-hit wonders!
But there's nothing wrong with bands emulating U2 - both in sound and style. Bono's abundant charisma - perhaps one of the most charismatic people on the planet - has not only served him well within U2, but in the world of charity. It's a rare find to get a front man like him. Some complain of Bono's supposedly "recent lazy lyrics". I would argue that "Walk On", "Beautiful Day", "Love & Peace", "Vertigo", "City of Blinding Lights", and the themes of "Stuck" and "Sometimes" are just as powerful, if not better, lyrically, than some of U2's other big hits (as if "With or Without You" or "Ultraviolet" are lyrical wonders). In other words, to have a singer that charismatic, that poetic and that good of a lead singer, who is also that concerned about the world, is nearly impossible to find. For that reason alone, there may never be another U2.
Edge's sound is unique. If another guitarist uses that echo effect, it will simply sound too much like the Edge, so other guitarists have to be careful. Edge knows how to play, as evidenced by the solos he'll rip off in concert, but he has found an eloquent way to be subdued, often bringing a haunting effect to U2's sound. Again, few guitartists are as talented.
Adam and Larry may not be the best, or even close to the best, in music. But they complement each other well. The two of them have created some of the most memorable basslines or drumbeats in music history.
And few bands have managed to stay together, with the same manager, for nearly 30 years!
As such, I doubt there'll be another U2. But if U2 can inspire bands to be as talented, to take time to write powerful lyrics, to take time to let their voices soar and create memorable mucis, to be a true presence on stage, and to be politically active, then I'm all for it. They may not have the careers of U2 or the Beatles, but for the time they have the spotlight, let it shine brilliantly.l
They need to keep to writing catchy, memorable dance songs.
Bravo, doc.
