The_One1932
Acrobat
First things first: I think the new album is fucking brilliant. Are there are a few songs I don't drool over? Yes. But I am, for the most part, walking around with a huge smile on my face trying to absorb, break down, appreciate, and digest all these new wonderful songs.
My problem is stuff like this:
"Is Moment of Surrender the new One?"
"Is Magnificent the new Bad?"
"Is song A the new song Z?"
This is simply irrational and impossible. Time/history is what makes these songs so indellible and memorable. The emotions and times of our lives we attach to these song are what give them their staying power and emotional relevance. When I first heard Beautiful Day, I didn't think it was all that great. Now, I think that song is one of the best songs of U2's career. I didn't care much for city of blinding lights, now I love it. Instead of trying to make a new song the new old song, why not just let them become what they become? The organic nature of U2's music is what has made them so relevant for so long, and not just in their sonic nature. Their songs, despite their immediacy, grow into something more than what we first make of them as time goes on and on. U2's catalog has a number of songs that seem to hit us in the face immediately, and a number that sleep/sneak up on people years and years later (like wake up dead man). Just let these songs happen, don't pigeon hole songs. I don't expect to hear the "next" where the streets have no name any more than I expect to hear the "next" Fez.
This isn't meant as an attack or criticism on the many people who have made these comparisons over the last few days, it is more a plea to let these songs be themselves, and for us all to sit back and enjoy the best album U2 has put out in a long time. If we expect one song to be something else that already has emotional weight attached, we don't give them their own space to grow.
My problem is stuff like this:
"Is Moment of Surrender the new One?"
"Is Magnificent the new Bad?"
"Is song A the new song Z?"
This is simply irrational and impossible. Time/history is what makes these songs so indellible and memorable. The emotions and times of our lives we attach to these song are what give them their staying power and emotional relevance. When I first heard Beautiful Day, I didn't think it was all that great. Now, I think that song is one of the best songs of U2's career. I didn't care much for city of blinding lights, now I love it. Instead of trying to make a new song the new old song, why not just let them become what they become? The organic nature of U2's music is what has made them so relevant for so long, and not just in their sonic nature. Their songs, despite their immediacy, grow into something more than what we first make of them as time goes on and on. U2's catalog has a number of songs that seem to hit us in the face immediately, and a number that sleep/sneak up on people years and years later (like wake up dead man). Just let these songs happen, don't pigeon hole songs. I don't expect to hear the "next" where the streets have no name any more than I expect to hear the "next" Fez.
This isn't meant as an attack or criticism on the many people who have made these comparisons over the last few days, it is more a plea to let these songs be themselves, and for us all to sit back and enjoy the best album U2 has put out in a long time. If we expect one song to be something else that already has emotional weight attached, we don't give them their own space to grow.
ness of those threads...
