So "out of the box" is defined as sounding different, for them. i can agree with that.
After 35 years and an unarguably diverse catalogue, what could they do that would be understood by you as being "out of the box"?
Take Scorsese. Been around a long time. Lots of different movies. Also haunted by his own past. When he does "Wolf," it's considered a Goodfellas rehash, only not as good (ie, COBL vs Steeets). If he does something really different (say, Hugo), no one sees it and fans cry out for the big bloody steaks of the past. (fwiw, "ATYCLB/Bomb" is = The Departed).
What I mean to say is that U2, like a Scorsese, have literally etched their own unique identity into the culture. There is such a thing as a U2 sound, that aching uplift, and that becomes itself a box. When you invent it, you arrive and you're a genius. When you return, it can never quite be the same because your audience will never again have that discovery (and neither will you).
These are challenges faces by all major artists across genres (Springsteen, Spielberg, Jonathan Franzen ... was
Freedom as good as
The Corrections? ... will we ever get another Breaking Bad from Vince Gilligan, another Mad Men from Weiner, what has David Chase some since The Sopranos ... did FFC ever do anything after Apocalypse Now?)
You could argue that if a 28-year old not named Scorsese came out with Wolf of Wall Street, he'd be considered a genius (or PT Anderson
). But because it's Scorsese, there's an impossible standard to live up to, even if you could argue, on the technical merits, that what was just made is actually "better" than what was done in the past. You can't redeliver a moment of discovery to an audience, they can't regain their innocence.
In a way, I see U2 like a lot of artists at their age. I'd say Spielberg and Scorsese are capable of moments and scenes as good or better than anything they've ever done, yet their films as a whole don't seem to add up to the same impact that they had in the past. Not because it isn't good, but because it's impossible to return -- and because the artist him/herself has become self-aware, they've become who they are, and who they always were.
These are half formed thoughts on a mobile, but for me, it underscores why I think they need to focus on writing really good songs that have emotional wallop. Reinvention, to me, seems a dead end. What else could they possibly sound like?
Amazing post...sums up beautifully the intent to "Top" a previous masterpiece work, becoming a sort of "rehash".
