Dorian Gray
Refugee
I just wanted to point out this debate from cbc.ca
It's touches on some great points, and it pretty funny. hope you enjoy!
source: http://www.cbc.ca/arts/music/u2smackdown.html
Welcome to the Smackdown, a new regular feature where two CBC Arts Online writers will butt heads over a hot topic in the world of pop culture.
On Nov. 21, U2 issued U218, its latest greatest-hits compilation. This comes just a week after the release of the charity single The Saints Are Coming, the band’s collaboration with Green Day. The proceeds will go to Music Rising, an agency created by U2 guitarist the Edge to finance music programs in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. In September, the band released U2 by U2, a plush, 352-page coffee-table book that recounts their 30-year history in words and pictures.
While U2 clearly has much product to sell, the question is: are they still musically relevant?
From: Matthew McKinnon
To: Andre Mayer
Subject: U2’s musical relevance
Hi Andre,
Let’s hit it. We’ve known each other a long while now, so you’ve already endured oh-so-many of my rants about Saint Bono and co. Before I whiz on their never-ending fire, here’s something you don’t know: U2’s Zoo TV tour was my first-ever concert experience, at Toronto’s since-demolished Exhibition Stadium. It was 1992; I was 15, and amazed by the spectacle. Rotating cars on crane arms, enormous video monitors pulsing with vaguely political statements, the band firing laser-beam versions of Achtung Baby and the important early hits. Bono was in full Fly mode — i.e. the sunglasses were somewhat new, not yet a permanent part of his face — and jittering on a runway that pushed far into the crowd. It was big, it was loud ... of course I had a wonderful time.
Another year I was late for family Christmas Eve because I went to see Rattle & Hum at a theatre with friends. (Afterward we dipped into the mall, where I bought myself Aerosmith’s Permanent Vacation on cassette. And that, my friend, is the most embarrassing thing I will ever admit on the internet.) Now, though, those memories feel like ancient history. The band has since become a brand, and stopped innovating sometime before the end of last century.
Yes, I’m aware: War, The Joshua Tree and Achtung are like a holy trinity for millions of perfectly sane people. But U2 fell off. All That You Can’t Leave Behind — 2000’s so-called comeback album (when did they leave? can they go away again?) — had a fantastic title, given how tightly it clung to the sound they created in the ’80s and ’90s. The next one, How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb (2004), was another retread ... which collected five Grammys, including album of the year. And still I think of it as “the one with the overwrought song from the iPod commercials.”
Matt
From: Andre Mayer
To: Matthew McKinnon
Subject: U2’s musical relevance
Hey Matt,
Before I commence defending U2, I must confess I have first-concert envy. My initiation into the stadium scene was Genesis, also 1992. At the time, U2 was in full flower; Genesis was wilting on the vine. In my defence, I was 17, and I didn’t know that it had also been 17 years since the band had any cred to speak of. But I regress.
There’s no denying that U2 has become much more than the world’s biggest band. (For most bands, that would be enough.) Their omnipresence can be irritating, but is it any worse than the indefatigable Rolling Stones? Or any band that’s been kicking around for more than a decade? The artist-as-brand paradigm isn’t unique to U2. In fact, I’d argue that Jay-Z and Diddy — who are not only rappers but record moguls, fashion designers and who knows what else — are far more brand-focused than U2. While aligning themselves with Apple was a major marketing coup, most of U2’s branding is channelled into charitable work with Amnesty International, Make Poverty History, DATA (Debt, AIDS, Trade in Africa) and many other worthy initiatives. Now that’s the kind of brand I can get behind.
Re: U2’s innovation, I won’t argue with you. Zooropa was the last challenging album they made and that was during Bill Clinton’s first term in the White House. But one indicator of a band’s relevance is how they compare to the bands they’ve influenced. If I had the choice between listening to U2 or recent sonic heirs like Coldplay or the Killers, there would be no debate. In terms of songcraft and lyrical complexity, How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb pretty much flattens Coldplay’s X&Y. As for Sam’s Town — it doesn’t even deserve a seat at the table.
From: Matthew McKinnon
To: Andre Mayer
Subject: U2’s musical relevance
Andre,
No, U2’s omnipresence is not worse than the Rolling Stones’ omnipresence. Can’t I loathe it in both cases? I don’t advocate that every group with a long career should kick the can, but musicians are artists, and bands like U2 and the Stones keep painting the same picture again and again. The Mona Lisa would be less special if Da Vinci had made a half-dozen of her.
I’m indifferent to Jurassic 5, the L.A. sextet that has been rapping about hip hop’s golden years for — gasp — more than a decade. One of their song titles, though, has stuck with me since the first time I heard it: Evolve or Dissolve. I’m a fervent believer that new music — i.e. something different than what came before, not old hits repackaged with a clever title — is the best music, so bands that stagnate tend to bore me to death. Or, less hyperbolically, bore me to the point of picking something else on iTunes.
You said it, U2 has coloured inside the lines since Zooropa — which, I notice, isn’t represented on U218 (nor are October and Pop). Ergo, I wish they would dissolve.
Nice move, Cochran, playing the charity card. For years, that’s been the one thing to slow the momentum of dissing U2. Given your impressive list of their impressive causes — really, I mean that — I guess we’ve introduced Googling to this conversation. So let me find something in return: U2, those fine humanitarians — and the world’s biggest music earners last year — have moved their money out of Ireland to avoid paying taxes. Hypocrisy, thy name is Bono.
Also, since you know me so well, I assume you’re clowning around by calling U2 better than Coldplay or the Killers. That’s like telling me mace hurts less than rubber bullets or pepper spray.
M
P.S. You’re on point about Jay, but calling Diddy a rapper?! Locate a corner and feel shame.
From: Andre Mayer
To: Matthew McKinnon
Subject: U2’s musical relevance
Matt,
That last missive was the e-mail equivalent of a towel-snap. I’m finding it painful to sit right now.
While U218 provides a solid cross-section of the band’s best singles, it’s really unfortunate that it doesn’t include anything from U2’s short-lived “freaky” phase (e.g. Numb, Lemon). The new track included here, Window in the Skies, only proves your point about U2’s complacence: it’s another plodding, overly emotive stadium rocker, something Bono probably wrote in the shower.
I won’t bother defending U2’s accounting practices, but I will say that regardless of the state of their art, U2 make great musical ambassadors. Warning: I’m going to get a little touchy-feely here. The reason Coldplay often sound so overwrought is because they’re straining to capture U2’s transcendent pop. What do I mean by “transcendent”? The reason tracks like New Year’s Day, Where the Streets Have No Name or Vertigo have been worldwide hits is that they appeal to the basic human desire for melody and positivity. Doesn’t matter where you live or what else you listen to, U2 are dependably uplifting.
A
From: Matthew McKinnon
To: Andre Mayer
Cc: Phil Collins
Subject: U2’s musical relevance
Andre,
I, too, enjoyed U2’s freaky phase best, and go along with your smart points about their ambassadorship. We can assume, though, they’re aiming higher than “Dependably Uplifting” for their epitaph ... provided one ever comes. Remind me: was Highlander Irish?
We’ve skirted the 98-pound shrimp in the cyber-room: Bono’s voice. It’s always been the band’s weakest instrument — Larry Mullen Jr., the Edge and the One Who Inexplicably Dated Naomi Campbell are faultless players — but it used to be much stronger than it is now. U2 the band would not have become U2 the planetary phenomenon if not for the way Bono sang songs like Sunday Bloody Sunday, With or Without You, Desire and One.
Actually, I should specify — the Achtung Baby version of One. Which, again, was a long way back in the road. I figured Bono would pull a Howard Hughes after the 2006 Grammys, when U2 made the mistake of inviting Mary J. Blige to join their performance of that song. The band had just torn through Vertigo, which, in turn, had torn through Bono’s pipes. He began One’s first verse, but when Miss Mary stepped out from the shadows to take up its words, it sounded like ... like the difference between Mary J. Blige and Sonny Bono.
Yes, I said that.
M
From: Andre Mayer
To: Matthew McKinnon
Subject: U2’s musical relevance
Dearest M —
A-ha! I was waiting for this: the assault on Bono’s voice. This is not the first time I’ve heard you belittle his pipes by referring to that unfortunate duet with Mary J. Agreed: she slays him. And here’s a list of other singers who would undoubtedly slay Bono: Mariah Carey, Jill Scott, Chris Cornell, Andrea Bocelli. Oh, and Luciano Pavarotti, in whose shadow Bono literally stood while they recorded the gorgeous 1995 single Miss Sarajevo.
I contend that Bono has a Great voice. Yes, capital G. It may not be the most powerful, but it conveys everything you want in a rock voice: urgency and emotion. If it cracks from time to time, all the better. It’s evidence that he means it.
Bono’s got a problem: his need to be universally loved. Thus his penchant for duets with people who can out-blast him.
A
From: Matthew McKinnon
To: Andre Mayer
Subject: U2’s musical relevance
A,
I cannot stoop low enough, so here goes: Hulk Hogan was to 1980s wrestling as U2 is to 2000s music. He was the heavyweight champ; they are the World’s Biggest Band. Back then, though, anyone with two eyes could see that the Hulkster was far from the best wrestler. His “victories” were all sizzle, no Steak-Ums. And nowadays, anyone with two ears should be able to hear that U2, in present form, is far from ...
Well, you do the math.
M
From: Andre Mayer
To: Matthew McKinnon
Subject: U2’s musical relevance
M —
Math was never one of my strengths, so I’ll spare myself the headache.
If U2 was the only band in the music industry to rely on a little sizzle now and then, we could consider ourselves lucky. But let’s get to the meat of the matter. I draw your attention to the rock acts on the most recent Billboard Hot 100 chart. The Killers, the Fray, Evanescence, Nickelback — in terms of songcraft, U2 still schools those fools.
A
From: Matthew McKinnon
To: Andre Mayer
Subject: U2’s musical relevance
Andre,
Oh sure, and 50 million Elvis fans can’t be wrong … except for the many times when they were. But why stop at Nickelback? We live in a world where Fergie — the Black Eyed Peas vocalist who should be most famous for peeing herself onstage — is making major bank on songs like Fergalicious (which nearly rhymes with atrocious, and is currently No. 3 on said Billboard chart) and London Bridge (which was better when Gwen Stefani sang it the first time, except she called it Hollaback Girl).
I take your point: U2 is a lesser evil than many other popular bands. Still, given the choice of living with or without them, it remains a snap decision on this end of the line.
M —
From: Andre Mayer
To: Matthew McKinnon
Subject: U2’s musical relevance
Matt—
Your Fergie reference is apropos. Besides the innate quality of U2’s music, the band brings a touch of class to a milieu — pop music — that sorely lacks it. Most artists will do anything to get some airplay: drop their drawers, dis other musicians or get stupid-drunk in a bar in the hopes that someone with a camera-phone will catch it and upload it to YouTube. U2 are chart stalwarts on the strength of their songs and their conviction. And I find that oddly reassuring.
U218 Singles is available in stores now.
Andre Mayer and Matthew McKinnon write about the arts for CBC.ca.
It's touches on some great points, and it pretty funny. hope you enjoy!
source: http://www.cbc.ca/arts/music/u2smackdown.html
Welcome to the Smackdown, a new regular feature where two CBC Arts Online writers will butt heads over a hot topic in the world of pop culture.
On Nov. 21, U2 issued U218, its latest greatest-hits compilation. This comes just a week after the release of the charity single The Saints Are Coming, the band’s collaboration with Green Day. The proceeds will go to Music Rising, an agency created by U2 guitarist the Edge to finance music programs in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. In September, the band released U2 by U2, a plush, 352-page coffee-table book that recounts their 30-year history in words and pictures.
While U2 clearly has much product to sell, the question is: are they still musically relevant?
From: Matthew McKinnon
To: Andre Mayer
Subject: U2’s musical relevance
Hi Andre,
Let’s hit it. We’ve known each other a long while now, so you’ve already endured oh-so-many of my rants about Saint Bono and co. Before I whiz on their never-ending fire, here’s something you don’t know: U2’s Zoo TV tour was my first-ever concert experience, at Toronto’s since-demolished Exhibition Stadium. It was 1992; I was 15, and amazed by the spectacle. Rotating cars on crane arms, enormous video monitors pulsing with vaguely political statements, the band firing laser-beam versions of Achtung Baby and the important early hits. Bono was in full Fly mode — i.e. the sunglasses were somewhat new, not yet a permanent part of his face — and jittering on a runway that pushed far into the crowd. It was big, it was loud ... of course I had a wonderful time.
Another year I was late for family Christmas Eve because I went to see Rattle & Hum at a theatre with friends. (Afterward we dipped into the mall, where I bought myself Aerosmith’s Permanent Vacation on cassette. And that, my friend, is the most embarrassing thing I will ever admit on the internet.) Now, though, those memories feel like ancient history. The band has since become a brand, and stopped innovating sometime before the end of last century.
Yes, I’m aware: War, The Joshua Tree and Achtung are like a holy trinity for millions of perfectly sane people. But U2 fell off. All That You Can’t Leave Behind — 2000’s so-called comeback album (when did they leave? can they go away again?) — had a fantastic title, given how tightly it clung to the sound they created in the ’80s and ’90s. The next one, How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb (2004), was another retread ... which collected five Grammys, including album of the year. And still I think of it as “the one with the overwrought song from the iPod commercials.”
Matt
From: Andre Mayer
To: Matthew McKinnon
Subject: U2’s musical relevance
Hey Matt,
Before I commence defending U2, I must confess I have first-concert envy. My initiation into the stadium scene was Genesis, also 1992. At the time, U2 was in full flower; Genesis was wilting on the vine. In my defence, I was 17, and I didn’t know that it had also been 17 years since the band had any cred to speak of. But I regress.
There’s no denying that U2 has become much more than the world’s biggest band. (For most bands, that would be enough.) Their omnipresence can be irritating, but is it any worse than the indefatigable Rolling Stones? Or any band that’s been kicking around for more than a decade? The artist-as-brand paradigm isn’t unique to U2. In fact, I’d argue that Jay-Z and Diddy — who are not only rappers but record moguls, fashion designers and who knows what else — are far more brand-focused than U2. While aligning themselves with Apple was a major marketing coup, most of U2’s branding is channelled into charitable work with Amnesty International, Make Poverty History, DATA (Debt, AIDS, Trade in Africa) and many other worthy initiatives. Now that’s the kind of brand I can get behind.
Re: U2’s innovation, I won’t argue with you. Zooropa was the last challenging album they made and that was during Bill Clinton’s first term in the White House. But one indicator of a band’s relevance is how they compare to the bands they’ve influenced. If I had the choice between listening to U2 or recent sonic heirs like Coldplay or the Killers, there would be no debate. In terms of songcraft and lyrical complexity, How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb pretty much flattens Coldplay’s X&Y. As for Sam’s Town — it doesn’t even deserve a seat at the table.
From: Matthew McKinnon
To: Andre Mayer
Subject: U2’s musical relevance
Andre,
No, U2’s omnipresence is not worse than the Rolling Stones’ omnipresence. Can’t I loathe it in both cases? I don’t advocate that every group with a long career should kick the can, but musicians are artists, and bands like U2 and the Stones keep painting the same picture again and again. The Mona Lisa would be less special if Da Vinci had made a half-dozen of her.
I’m indifferent to Jurassic 5, the L.A. sextet that has been rapping about hip hop’s golden years for — gasp — more than a decade. One of their song titles, though, has stuck with me since the first time I heard it: Evolve or Dissolve. I’m a fervent believer that new music — i.e. something different than what came before, not old hits repackaged with a clever title — is the best music, so bands that stagnate tend to bore me to death. Or, less hyperbolically, bore me to the point of picking something else on iTunes.
You said it, U2 has coloured inside the lines since Zooropa — which, I notice, isn’t represented on U218 (nor are October and Pop). Ergo, I wish they would dissolve.
Nice move, Cochran, playing the charity card. For years, that’s been the one thing to slow the momentum of dissing U2. Given your impressive list of their impressive causes — really, I mean that — I guess we’ve introduced Googling to this conversation. So let me find something in return: U2, those fine humanitarians — and the world’s biggest music earners last year — have moved their money out of Ireland to avoid paying taxes. Hypocrisy, thy name is Bono.
Also, since you know me so well, I assume you’re clowning around by calling U2 better than Coldplay or the Killers. That’s like telling me mace hurts less than rubber bullets or pepper spray.
M
P.S. You’re on point about Jay, but calling Diddy a rapper?! Locate a corner and feel shame.
From: Andre Mayer
To: Matthew McKinnon
Subject: U2’s musical relevance
Matt,
That last missive was the e-mail equivalent of a towel-snap. I’m finding it painful to sit right now.
While U218 provides a solid cross-section of the band’s best singles, it’s really unfortunate that it doesn’t include anything from U2’s short-lived “freaky” phase (e.g. Numb, Lemon). The new track included here, Window in the Skies, only proves your point about U2’s complacence: it’s another plodding, overly emotive stadium rocker, something Bono probably wrote in the shower.
I won’t bother defending U2’s accounting practices, but I will say that regardless of the state of their art, U2 make great musical ambassadors. Warning: I’m going to get a little touchy-feely here. The reason Coldplay often sound so overwrought is because they’re straining to capture U2’s transcendent pop. What do I mean by “transcendent”? The reason tracks like New Year’s Day, Where the Streets Have No Name or Vertigo have been worldwide hits is that they appeal to the basic human desire for melody and positivity. Doesn’t matter where you live or what else you listen to, U2 are dependably uplifting.
A
From: Matthew McKinnon
To: Andre Mayer
Cc: Phil Collins
Subject: U2’s musical relevance
Andre,
I, too, enjoyed U2’s freaky phase best, and go along with your smart points about their ambassadorship. We can assume, though, they’re aiming higher than “Dependably Uplifting” for their epitaph ... provided one ever comes. Remind me: was Highlander Irish?
We’ve skirted the 98-pound shrimp in the cyber-room: Bono’s voice. It’s always been the band’s weakest instrument — Larry Mullen Jr., the Edge and the One Who Inexplicably Dated Naomi Campbell are faultless players — but it used to be much stronger than it is now. U2 the band would not have become U2 the planetary phenomenon if not for the way Bono sang songs like Sunday Bloody Sunday, With or Without You, Desire and One.
Actually, I should specify — the Achtung Baby version of One. Which, again, was a long way back in the road. I figured Bono would pull a Howard Hughes after the 2006 Grammys, when U2 made the mistake of inviting Mary J. Blige to join their performance of that song. The band had just torn through Vertigo, which, in turn, had torn through Bono’s pipes. He began One’s first verse, but when Miss Mary stepped out from the shadows to take up its words, it sounded like ... like the difference between Mary J. Blige and Sonny Bono.
Yes, I said that.
M
From: Andre Mayer
To: Matthew McKinnon
Subject: U2’s musical relevance
Dearest M —
A-ha! I was waiting for this: the assault on Bono’s voice. This is not the first time I’ve heard you belittle his pipes by referring to that unfortunate duet with Mary J. Agreed: she slays him. And here’s a list of other singers who would undoubtedly slay Bono: Mariah Carey, Jill Scott, Chris Cornell, Andrea Bocelli. Oh, and Luciano Pavarotti, in whose shadow Bono literally stood while they recorded the gorgeous 1995 single Miss Sarajevo.
I contend that Bono has a Great voice. Yes, capital G. It may not be the most powerful, but it conveys everything you want in a rock voice: urgency and emotion. If it cracks from time to time, all the better. It’s evidence that he means it.
Bono’s got a problem: his need to be universally loved. Thus his penchant for duets with people who can out-blast him.
A
From: Matthew McKinnon
To: Andre Mayer
Subject: U2’s musical relevance
A,
I cannot stoop low enough, so here goes: Hulk Hogan was to 1980s wrestling as U2 is to 2000s music. He was the heavyweight champ; they are the World’s Biggest Band. Back then, though, anyone with two eyes could see that the Hulkster was far from the best wrestler. His “victories” were all sizzle, no Steak-Ums. And nowadays, anyone with two ears should be able to hear that U2, in present form, is far from ...
Well, you do the math.
M
From: Andre Mayer
To: Matthew McKinnon
Subject: U2’s musical relevance
M —
Math was never one of my strengths, so I’ll spare myself the headache.
If U2 was the only band in the music industry to rely on a little sizzle now and then, we could consider ourselves lucky. But let’s get to the meat of the matter. I draw your attention to the rock acts on the most recent Billboard Hot 100 chart. The Killers, the Fray, Evanescence, Nickelback — in terms of songcraft, U2 still schools those fools.
A
From: Matthew McKinnon
To: Andre Mayer
Subject: U2’s musical relevance
Andre,
Oh sure, and 50 million Elvis fans can’t be wrong … except for the many times when they were. But why stop at Nickelback? We live in a world where Fergie — the Black Eyed Peas vocalist who should be most famous for peeing herself onstage — is making major bank on songs like Fergalicious (which nearly rhymes with atrocious, and is currently No. 3 on said Billboard chart) and London Bridge (which was better when Gwen Stefani sang it the first time, except she called it Hollaback Girl).
I take your point: U2 is a lesser evil than many other popular bands. Still, given the choice of living with or without them, it remains a snap decision on this end of the line.
M —
From: Andre Mayer
To: Matthew McKinnon
Subject: U2’s musical relevance
Matt—
Your Fergie reference is apropos. Besides the innate quality of U2’s music, the band brings a touch of class to a milieu — pop music — that sorely lacks it. Most artists will do anything to get some airplay: drop their drawers, dis other musicians or get stupid-drunk in a bar in the hopes that someone with a camera-phone will catch it and upload it to YouTube. U2 are chart stalwarts on the strength of their songs and their conviction. And I find that oddly reassuring.
U218 Singles is available in stores now.
Andre Mayer and Matthew McKinnon write about the arts for CBC.ca.
