namkcuR
ONE love, blood, life
U2 is in a unique position; They are 30 years into their career with no lineup changes, no break-ups, no reunions, none of that. How you ultimately rank "No Line On The Horizon" depends on what you expect out of U2 at this point in their career - what kind of record you think they're capable of putting out at this point, what kind of record you think they will put out at this point, and how you view the trajectory of their career. It's all about context.
The word "masterpiece" is thrown around a lot. I often see people post things that essentially amount to "I expected this to be a masterpiece but after listening to it I don't think it is, and I'm really disappointed". Here's the thing: Not every album has to be a masterpiece to be a success or to satisfy the fanbase. It's unrealistic to expect every single album, at this point, to be an all-time great album. I see so many people here who expected "No Line On The Horizon" to be a peer of "Achtung Baby" or "The Joshua Tree", and when it didn't live up to that expectation in their eyes, they expressed as much in the form of disappointed or even angry posts.
This is where the context of what you think U2 should be doing at this point in their career comes into play. I believe that rock and roll artists who have been around as long as U2 have do have certain career arcs, that they do have identifiable peaks, and that by definition, after a band passes their peak, they don't get up to that overall quality again. I believe that U2's peak was a while ago - the mythical period of 1987-1998. I believe that they reached a level of combined commercial success and artistic brilliance in that period that few bands have ever reached. It doesn't mean that what came before and after it isn't great too - indeed, there are quite a few moments of brilliance from the early 80s and and from this decade, but I believe that it is almost unfair for us to expect them to reach their 87-97 peak again. You can't get to a peak twice, and beyond that, there is the issue of emotional and personal attachment.
I first got into U2 when I was 13 in 1998 and I collected the whole back catalog by late 1999. From the 8th grade in 1998-99 to my high school graduation in 2003, I listened to an incredible amount of U2, frankly, probably more than I do now, although i still listen to a lot. My favorite albums and the ones I listened to the most are "Achtung Baby", "The Joshua Tree", "Pop", and "Zooropa". I listened to these records ad nauseam between the ages of 13 and 18, a defining window of time in anyone's life. I have so many memories attached to these records, a sense of teenage wonder that I attribute to these records, these records may have even, to an extent, shaped elements of my personality, because I listened to them so much in my formative years. Because of all of this, it is very unlikely that U2 will ever put anything out again that will surpass those records in my heart and in my mind. And because of that, like I said, it is unfair to expect them to. I mean, I have a memory from my sophmore or junior year of high school - I don't remember which - of a 1-2 hour long bus ride I took with my high school orchestra on the way to the annual state contest. I listen to "Achtung Baby" nearly all the way through on that bus ride, in the dark. Memories like that make it nearly impossible for newer records to match or surpass albums like that.
So what should we expect from U2 at this point? Like I said, they are in a unique position given their longevity and their relevance, so the biggest thing that we should expect from them is that they don't take the road of the Rolling Stones. We should expect that any new record they put out from this point on shows an honest and genuine effort to keep making the best music they can possibly make, whether it sells big or not, to keep trying new things to the extent that they can(the longer you've been around, the harder it is to find new things), to make it sound real, genuine, passionate, artistic, creative, and exciting. I think "No Line On The Horizon" accomplishes this. It's not really close to being the overall artistic and musical accomplishments that "Achtung Baby" and "The Joshua Tree" were, but there are moments of brilliance. The title track. Moment Of Surrender. Fez-Being Born. White As Snow. Cedars Of Lebanon. The Magnificent riff and "justified/till we die/you and I will magnify/magnificent" and the middle 8. The chanting and solo/outro in Unknown Caller. It's certainly much more reassuring that they won't become the Rolling Stones than "How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb" was...for as much as we enjoy some of the songs on that record(and I do enjoy them), it was a safer record than this one. So, I don't think "No Line On The Horizon" is a masterpiece, and that's ok, because it's still a very good record with some brilliant moments on it that clearly show that the band is still trying to "blow their own minds" and "grow as songwriters and as musicians and as people" as Bono put it on VH1 Legends. And that makes the record a success to me. I do have to say though, in my gut, I think the further along U2 get at this point, the more they're going to have to make music "their age" - i.e. more atmospheric, perhaps slower, less guitar-riff-driven music - to continue progressing and avoid the road of the Rolling Stones.
As for their relevance at this point...the reviewers who were saying that U2 isn't relevant anymore should resign from their jobs. When you've been around for 30 years and are arguably a decade past your artistic peak, and you still are popular enough to get a week long gig on "Late Night With David Letterman" and to get "Good Morning America" - a show that has an audience of whom a large portion probably doesn't care so much about you - to devote an hour of their show to you - you are not irrelevant. Perhaps U2 isn't as relevant as they were in 1987 or 1993, but then few bands ever have been that relevant. Just because they're not as relevant doesn't mean they're irrelevant. You want to talk about irrelevance? Let's talk about irrelevance. Rick Springfield. The guy has made a career off one song, "Jesse's Girl". He made a guest appearance on that Karaoke show hosted by Wayne Brady, "Don't Forget The Lyrics!" on CBS back in January, where contestants have to see how many lyrics to a given song they can sing off the top of their heads. He played "Jesse's Girl". And then he played a song off his new album, which outside of the lyrics, was not easily differentiable from "Jesse's Girl". I bet you didn't even know Rick Springfield had a new album out, since he didn't get one night on Letterman much less a week, or a gig on GMA. He had to go on a Karaoke game/reality show to promote his record. That is irrelevance.
"No Line On The Horizon" has some brilliant moments and is pretty strong overall, it's commercially good enough and viable enough to get U2 major television airtime, and musically it's a good indication that U2 aren't that comfortable going down the road of the Rolling Stones, and that satisfies me at this point.
The word "masterpiece" is thrown around a lot. I often see people post things that essentially amount to "I expected this to be a masterpiece but after listening to it I don't think it is, and I'm really disappointed". Here's the thing: Not every album has to be a masterpiece to be a success or to satisfy the fanbase. It's unrealistic to expect every single album, at this point, to be an all-time great album. I see so many people here who expected "No Line On The Horizon" to be a peer of "Achtung Baby" or "The Joshua Tree", and when it didn't live up to that expectation in their eyes, they expressed as much in the form of disappointed or even angry posts.
This is where the context of what you think U2 should be doing at this point in their career comes into play. I believe that rock and roll artists who have been around as long as U2 have do have certain career arcs, that they do have identifiable peaks, and that by definition, after a band passes their peak, they don't get up to that overall quality again. I believe that U2's peak was a while ago - the mythical period of 1987-1998. I believe that they reached a level of combined commercial success and artistic brilliance in that period that few bands have ever reached. It doesn't mean that what came before and after it isn't great too - indeed, there are quite a few moments of brilliance from the early 80s and and from this decade, but I believe that it is almost unfair for us to expect them to reach their 87-97 peak again. You can't get to a peak twice, and beyond that, there is the issue of emotional and personal attachment.
I first got into U2 when I was 13 in 1998 and I collected the whole back catalog by late 1999. From the 8th grade in 1998-99 to my high school graduation in 2003, I listened to an incredible amount of U2, frankly, probably more than I do now, although i still listen to a lot. My favorite albums and the ones I listened to the most are "Achtung Baby", "The Joshua Tree", "Pop", and "Zooropa". I listened to these records ad nauseam between the ages of 13 and 18, a defining window of time in anyone's life. I have so many memories attached to these records, a sense of teenage wonder that I attribute to these records, these records may have even, to an extent, shaped elements of my personality, because I listened to them so much in my formative years. Because of all of this, it is very unlikely that U2 will ever put anything out again that will surpass those records in my heart and in my mind. And because of that, like I said, it is unfair to expect them to. I mean, I have a memory from my sophmore or junior year of high school - I don't remember which - of a 1-2 hour long bus ride I took with my high school orchestra on the way to the annual state contest. I listen to "Achtung Baby" nearly all the way through on that bus ride, in the dark. Memories like that make it nearly impossible for newer records to match or surpass albums like that.
So what should we expect from U2 at this point? Like I said, they are in a unique position given their longevity and their relevance, so the biggest thing that we should expect from them is that they don't take the road of the Rolling Stones. We should expect that any new record they put out from this point on shows an honest and genuine effort to keep making the best music they can possibly make, whether it sells big or not, to keep trying new things to the extent that they can(the longer you've been around, the harder it is to find new things), to make it sound real, genuine, passionate, artistic, creative, and exciting. I think "No Line On The Horizon" accomplishes this. It's not really close to being the overall artistic and musical accomplishments that "Achtung Baby" and "The Joshua Tree" were, but there are moments of brilliance. The title track. Moment Of Surrender. Fez-Being Born. White As Snow. Cedars Of Lebanon. The Magnificent riff and "justified/till we die/you and I will magnify/magnificent" and the middle 8. The chanting and solo/outro in Unknown Caller. It's certainly much more reassuring that they won't become the Rolling Stones than "How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb" was...for as much as we enjoy some of the songs on that record(and I do enjoy them), it was a safer record than this one. So, I don't think "No Line On The Horizon" is a masterpiece, and that's ok, because it's still a very good record with some brilliant moments on it that clearly show that the band is still trying to "blow their own minds" and "grow as songwriters and as musicians and as people" as Bono put it on VH1 Legends. And that makes the record a success to me. I do have to say though, in my gut, I think the further along U2 get at this point, the more they're going to have to make music "their age" - i.e. more atmospheric, perhaps slower, less guitar-riff-driven music - to continue progressing and avoid the road of the Rolling Stones.
As for their relevance at this point...the reviewers who were saying that U2 isn't relevant anymore should resign from their jobs. When you've been around for 30 years and are arguably a decade past your artistic peak, and you still are popular enough to get a week long gig on "Late Night With David Letterman" and to get "Good Morning America" - a show that has an audience of whom a large portion probably doesn't care so much about you - to devote an hour of their show to you - you are not irrelevant. Perhaps U2 isn't as relevant as they were in 1987 or 1993, but then few bands ever have been that relevant. Just because they're not as relevant doesn't mean they're irrelevant. You want to talk about irrelevance? Let's talk about irrelevance. Rick Springfield. The guy has made a career off one song, "Jesse's Girl". He made a guest appearance on that Karaoke show hosted by Wayne Brady, "Don't Forget The Lyrics!" on CBS back in January, where contestants have to see how many lyrics to a given song they can sing off the top of their heads. He played "Jesse's Girl". And then he played a song off his new album, which outside of the lyrics, was not easily differentiable from "Jesse's Girl". I bet you didn't even know Rick Springfield had a new album out, since he didn't get one night on Letterman much less a week, or a gig on GMA. He had to go on a Karaoke game/reality show to promote his record. That is irrelevance.
"No Line On The Horizon" has some brilliant moments and is pretty strong overall, it's commercially good enough and viable enough to get U2 major television airtime, and musically it's a good indication that U2 aren't that comfortable going down the road of the Rolling Stones, and that satisfies me at this point.