(09-11-2004) U2, The Band That Never Embarrasses Itself -- New York Times*

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

dsmith2904

ONE love, blood, life
Joined
Apr 17, 2002
Messages
12,290
Location
Just keep me where the light is
[SIMG]http://graphics7.nytimes.com/images/2004/09/12/arts/pare.184.12.jpg[/SIMG]
U2, The Band That Never Embarrasses Itself

U2'S next album, due in November, will grapple with two challenges: one musical, one cultural.

On its 2000 album, "All That You Can't Leave Behind," U2 retrenched with the kind of ringing, open-hearted arena rock that had made the band's reputation in the 1980's, deliberately reviving a sound that it had twisted and cloaked for a decade. Over its long career, U2 has made more than one foray away from its youthful anthems, first as it tried to come to terms with rock's American roots and then, in the 1990's, as it layered songs with electronic rhythms and swathed the Edge's guitar in effects and distortion.

In 2000, U2 cleared its decks again. Its music was no longer ambivalent about being large enough to resound in a stadium, and its songs directly stated a longing for transcendence and divine grace. Now, at a moment when younger bands are rediscovering garage-rock, the early 1980's and the power of bluntly emotional confessions, U2's next album (Nov. 23) will reveal whether the band intends to stay streamlined or start extending its music in yet another direction.

But the larger cultural question is what the 21st-century role can be for a band that never shied away from significance. While many new acts seem to arrive and disappear within a semester as they revel in self-absorption, U2 has endured for decades and taken itself seriously without too much embarrassment. All sorts of musicians have timed their political statements to arrive this election season, and although U2 has rarely seemed partisan, its songs about love have sought the moral high ground as often as they have considered romance. This will be U2's first album since the beginning of the war on terrorism, and the band may well take notice of larger issues.

--New York Times
 
Great article & an eloquent one at that. I like how the journalist sets up the overall tone & recognizes the fact that U2 are both a cultural & musical entity; sometimes cohesive & other times clashing in certain ideals, i.e. the music juxtaposed to the message. It's interesting to see what direction U2 will take with every new release & how time always presents a challenge that U2 seem to meet repeatedly, head on & succeed nearly every time. Even in moments when U2 had briefly fallen out of public favor, the band & its music always held on to terra firma. And now, when the world seems to be pulled & stretched in every direction, either by the force of a hurricane, the remembrance of 2 towers, or the unjust Iraq war, U2 seem to be more relevant than ever....if the album title is accurate ("How to dismantle an Atomic Bomb"), U2's message could also translate as, "How to Dismantle an Atomic and Belligerent U.S. Presidency". Let's trust that U2 and John Kerry will both emerge on top in the upcoming months!:huh:
 
"How to Dismantle an Atomic and Belligerent U.S. Presidency"?!?
Do you really see U2 as being as obvious and shallow as this? I am sure that on a personal level they (or some of them) are political, but musically/artistically, they have evoked something way beyond the crass worldliness of politics. Don't embarrass yourself. They haven't.
 
Last edited:
The only reason U2 is partisan in this election is because of Bono's social activisian and need for Bush to cough up the $15 Billion for the War on Aids. If it there was no need for Bush for Bono then I am positive they would have been speaking out against Bush and his government much in the same way that Springsteen is and many other artists.
 
Me too :sigh: There is so much I want to say but I'm trying to avoid FYM :censored:
 
Headache in a Suitcase said:
i am so sick of the bush bashing it's not even worth discussing at this point.

:rant: Oh, I know... It's impossible to go two steps here in MA without running into it about eight times. It's like, come on guys, let's talk about something happy: like the fact that it's less than two weeks till Vertigo!

Anyways, since this isn't the place for that, nice article. I'd say that if this album is as well received as the last one - i.e., if one of the singles gets as much airtime as Beautiful Day (please, stop playing that song!) - U2 will definitely have another few years as the world's greatest rock 'n' roll band. After that, well, we'll just have to wait (and hope) and see. Whatever the case, they're going down in rock history right next to their iconic predecessors. Rock on, boys. :up:
 
People..IT'S NOT ABOUT POLITICS, IT'S ABOUT LIFE. It's not about bashing a peron (bush) it's about bashing an attitude, about bashing greed, about bashing halliburton. It's about bashing the fact that the U.S. invaded a country..so that Dick Cheney's Halliburton could rebuild a Starbucks and McDonald's on every corner.

Biff, you should try to look beyond the surface if you only see that something is shallow. Please don't take that as insult. It's just that I feel that there is alot at stake here, in music & in the world. U2 will i'm sure talk about many things in their album. And some things they say may purposely have double meaning.
"How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb"..if that's the title it's an interesting one. What is the 'Atomic Bomb' they are referring to? Is it a physical bomb? Or is it something else like a 'negativity' a force we must deal with? I read the article a few months ago where Bono was asked how he would dismantle an atomic bomb...and he said (I believe), "with love baby, LOVE" This will be their message. Not shallow politics. But love has many faces and their songs will encompass all aspects of that.
In a sense I'm sorry if I've ruffled some feathers here. But really I'm not, because we all have things to say & we should say them. I'm so excited about the new album and the single..I can't wait any longer!! This should be a fantastic year.
 
Last edited:
Kudos to U2 for not pulling a wanker maneuver like Radiohead on their last album. That kind of stuff just isn't what people are looking for in their artists/music. Let the music do the talking, and i'm sure in this case it will.
 
Personally, I'd rather hear a song Bono'd written for his dad than anything having to do with politics. That, to me, would mean a lot more. Let's face it: their Sunday Bloody Sunday era is past; their Silver and Gold era is past. Even the Bullet the Blue Sky era is past. Those had their moment in the sun, and now it's time to move on and let the new bands (and Bruce Springsteen) do the bashing.

Don't get me wrong; it's cool that Bono wants to save the world :)up: rock, B-man), but I don't think that U2's current status allows another War. Sunday Bloody Sunday was a great song for an angry young Irish band in the early 80's. A Bush-bashing song is not a great idea from a 25 year old still-somewhat-angry-but-not-so-much-against-America-and-certainly-not-going-to-protest-its-war-on-terror Irish band.

I guess I just prefer the love and sex and God songs (even if Bono can't tell them apart...). Love, baby, love. :heart:

(Oh, by the way, I do love and respect Bruce Springsteen as an artist and as a bushwhacker. Though, more as an artist... :rolleyes: But whatever floats your boat, Boss)
 
It's a testament to U2's all-inclusiveness, its avoidance of overt partisan politics over the yrs, it's recognizance of the REALLY important issues..simple human suffering transends politcal parties and at times EVERY ONE is guilty...

that such a diverse bunch of fans with a different range of political viewpoints is brought together. We clash politically but all love U2. The evangelical Christian right wing , with plugs for Bush on its webpages (u2sermons.blogspot.com--FANTASTC site for anyone who is in tine with the spiritual side of the band..the other day they had a link on their homepage to a sermon somebody preached with U2 in it, about Chechnya..SBS quoted at length...recommended read for ANYONE) and the leftist activists who went to protest in NYC...all come together with this band.

Probably the last place in this country that the warring factions are brought together.

Makes me teary. The tour will indeed be an oasis of calm in a sea of madness. I don't know what I'd do if these guys weren't around. We can indulge in the fantasy that we ARE all "one but not the same."

BTW Headache..LOVE yr site....does this mean that when when the disc comes out, we'll go to Defcon 5?:wink:
 
Last edited:
Nice article. Interesting how it points out that this is in fact U2's first post 9/11 album. Makes it certainly sound like the title could very well be "How to...". What always blew me away was the fact that "All That..." was the most perfect statement U2 could make about 9/11 and this age. Amazing how this album was there to be the right medicine for a world and, more specifically, a country in a lot of hurt.
 
EvolutionMonkey said:
The only reason U2 is partisan in this election is because of Bono's social activisian and need for Bush to cough up the $15 Billion for the War on Aids. If it there was no need for Bush for Bono then I am positive they would have been speaking out against Bush and his government much in the same way that Springsteen is and many other artists.

I'm definitely with EvolutionMonkey on this one!!
 
Elevation01 said:
It's about bashing the fact that the U.S. invaded a country..so that Dick Cheney's Halliburton could rebuild a Starbucks and McDonald's on every corner.


I sincerely hope you don't really beLIEve this... :rolleyes:
 
U2 are not stupid. They'd never throw partisan politics into their album. They would lose a huge group of fans. Bad for business, which is exactly what U2 is.
 
Zoocoustic said:
U2 are not stupid. They'd never throw partisan politics into their album. They would lose a huge group of fans. Bad for business, which is exactly what U2 is.


Why is everyone insisting U2 has never been partisan? I know they don't bash politicians by name in their songs, but I don't think you could exactly call a song like Bullet the Blue Sky politically neutral. I understand their need to stay away from partisan politics right now because of Bono's work for Africa, but somehow I don't think they would refrain from speaking their minds just because they are afraid of pissing off fans or losing money - at least I hope they wouldn't.

(Prepares to duck flames)
 
Bono's shades said:



Why is everyone insisting U2 has never been partisan? I know they don't bash politicians by name in their songs, but I don't think you could exactly call a song like Bullet the Blue Sky politically neutral. I understand their need to stay away from partisan politics right now because of Bono's work for Africa, but somehow I don't think they would refrain from speaking their minds just because they are afraid of pissing off fans or losing money - at least I hope they wouldn't.

(Prepares to duck flames)

Must agree w/Bono's Shades. Unfortunately 'Bono's Shades' some fans on this sight only see the surface and take things literally as appears to be the case with 'Pop Matt". Doesn't anyone remember Bono calling pres. Bush Sr. during the zoo Tv concerts. Make no mistake- U2 are not afraid to throw their political weight when and where they feel it is right. Bono is an intelligent man. And, everyone must choose their cause to fight for. Bono's is now the AIDS crisis. And, he must follow that through. Waging battles on other grounds would be useless if one ultimately loses their war. (For the surface people: this means that if Bono chooses sides in an election he would risk losing the position & clout he has built up to bolster his cause- I'm not actually saying that Bono will 'physically' strap a helmut to his head and 'physically' fight on a battle ground somewhere for his cause):drool: Get real..please look into the meaning behind the message.
As for Pop Matt, don't you think it odd that Halliburton are doing the rebuilding in Iraq. Ok, I'll add it up for you. Hmmm...Iraq=oil. Bush Family=oil. Dick Cheney=Halliburton. Oil+reconstruction=Bush lining his wallets, & Cheney's waist line expanding to the point that he blows up like that guy in the Monty Python movie!
I'm available for tutoring should you find my services required.
 
Last edited:
You see 'Pop Matt', I'm not actually saying that there will be a starbucks and Mcdonalds on every corner (Okay...every other corner...and a few crispy creme doughnut shops perhaps). Sad...very sad. I'm talking about forcing our will. Throwing our weight around. Being the bully.
We have a chance to not be the Roman Empire. We have a chance to offer peace & show that we want stability. There are other ways to share your ideals other than force...better ways. The best, being to show by example.

Can't you see that? Can't you believe that? Please tell me you really see what's going on.
 
Last edited:
Elevation01 said:


I'm available for tutoring should you find my services required.

Perhaps I need this. I have three degrees, but I have no idea what you are trying to say. How you got from Pareles' vague NYT's pre-review to this is completely beyond me. What the heck is your point?
 
Elevation01 said:

Can't you see that? Can't you believe that? Please tell me you really see what's going on.

Please tell me what you believe is going on. I have no axe to grind; I honestly cannot grasp what you are trying to articulate.
 
biff said:


Perhaps I need this. I have three degrees, but I have no idea what you are trying to say. How you got from Pareles' vague NYT's pre-review to this is completely beyond me. What the heck is your point?


Congrat's Biff. Please read or re-read the intro paragraph and the last paragraph of the review, uhhmm..article.
 
Last edited:
Elevation01 said:
You see 'Pop Matt', I'm not actually saying that there will be a starbucks and Mcdonalds on every corner (Okay...every other corner...and a few crispy creme doughnut shops perhaps). Sad...very sad. I'm talking about forcing our will. Throwing our weight around. Being the bully.
We have a chance to not be the Roman Empire. We have a chance to offer peace & show that we want stability. There are other ways to share your ideals other than force...better ways. The best, being to show by example.

Can't you see that? Can't you believe that? Please tell me you really see what's going on.

Sadly many people do know what's going on at least a nagging feeling in the back of their minds but they still will vote for Bush because a vote for Bush means their party wins at any cost. If people on the right say that OIL has nothing to do with occupying Iraq then they are only fooling themselves, Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world, do people on the right think it is just a coincidence that it was chosen for this war ? If Iraq had no oil would it still be attacked ? that is the most important question and I have feeling the answer would be no. And I agree with your statements regarding Haliburton, this is a company that the vice president was CEO of and still recieves money from and now they are in charge of getting the bulk of work contracts in Iraq if that's a coincidence then you have no idea of how politics work and how politicians own friends are given special treatment and deals.

Sometimes i feel like i'm living in the Twilight Zone, it just proves to me that people can convince themselves that sky is blue when in fact it is grey. I'm not worried about politicians or the media brainwashing people anymore, nowadays people are just brainwashing themselves.

I would like to add that Larry went to a protest against the Iraq invasion which is another proof that they are against Bush at least internally.
 
Last edited:
Awesome EvolutionMonkey! Plus, didn't know that about Larry. Ahhh...so refreshing. Thanks. It's nice to know that someone has their eyes open. It helps ya know..especially when you want to understand what's really going on in music such as U2's!
 
Last edited:
Elevation01 said:



Congrat's Biff. Please read or re-read the intro paragraph and the last paragraph of the review.

Well, I have read this article (not a "review", since Pareles has not heard the record). So he speculates that U2 "may well take notice of larger issues". Yes, they may, and they may not.
In the 80's they were somewhat political, but it was mostly a Biblical agenda that drove their politics. Lately, they have been resolutely non-partisan, and faith, over politics, has played an even greater role.
I privately have strong (negative) feelings about the current U.S. foreign policy, but I cannot see how you can glean from this New York Times small and vague article that U2 are going to come out all political, if that is indeed what you are trying to say. What is it again that you are trying to say?
 
"U2, The Band That Never Embarrasses Itself"

The only way that U2 could embarrass itself is if they use their new album and tour to take a partisan stand towards American politics.
 

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom