Thanks for the post.
I think the article is very positive. I am still waiting for the backlash that I think is inevitably going to hit U2. With the exception of a very few critics, U2 is currently being universally acclaimed.
In this article, while not coming out directly saying it, the author implies that U2 are at least as great if not greater than the Rolling Stones and the Beatles when one considers that U2's acclaimed creative period of over 20 years is unsurpassed by either group.
The author (David Plotz) must be a huge fan because of the subtlety of some of his analysis. For instance, not many people notice that Bono manages to find the perfect, non-offensive combination, of arrogance and self deprecation. How many other stars can do that well?
I think this, in part, is where U2's recent unwavering critical success lies. During the JT era, U2 was insufferably serious for many. During the nineties it was a case of incomprehensible irony overload that forced some to run for the hills. Lately, U2 has combined the seriousness of the JT period with the levity it learned in the nineties. Pretty sucessful so far, but I worry that U2 is increasingly being perceived as sort of like the Microsoft of music in the sense that they are so intent on being relevant and dominant. Larry's statements in the Spin Band of the Year article clearly show signs of megalomania. Knowing the genius of U2, I wouldn't be surprised if U2's next album is more experimental, less pop, and is promoted less. Also, if there is a tour this summer, get ready for the return of the large production. Maybe not Zootv/Popmart but certainly not as seemingly understated as Elevation.
I like the following observation in the article:
"A U2 concert is one of the few places on the planet where intelligent people wave cigarette lighters without irony."
