MBH
Acrobat
Hey everyone,
I find the hateful articles in life to be the most interesting for a few reasons:
1. I am curious to see the "other side" of a point of view in order to compare it to mine
2. they are much more amusing, interesting and/or provacative than a complimentary article.
Anyway, let me preface by saying that this excerpt was taken from the "Well Hung" section of the current Rolling Stone Magazine. The authors of this article(Jason Cohen and another fellow who I cannot recall at the moment) have a strong hatred and bias against Bono. I am a frequent reader of Rolling Stone and to be fair, they are usually very favorable toward U2. If you have any anger to vent, please try to direct it toward someone other than Rolling Stone. I am very cusious to read your replies(you can reply to the authors at SQWUBBSY@AOL.COM).
BANALITY OF EVIL AWARD: Bono
This one really ought to be named after the little prick. See, what you people can't seem to fathom is that U2 spent the last half of the Nineties wallowing in artistic and commercial relevance. They didn't "get back to rock" because of passion. They "applied for the job" of BBITW because that's what it is to them -- a job. The kids wanna rock, they said, so we'll ditch this techno stuff (which was an equally desperate aesthetic
choice, the first time their experimentation felt motivated by external rather than internal forces). The only bands that matter are on TRL, so we'll pander to that. Clear Channel is gonna give us the most money and that will help us get more radio play, so we'll cast our lot with them, and we'll have $45 general admission seats so nobody
notices we're charging $130 for the good ones. We don't care about Bono's attempts to "change the system from within" -- it still doesn't justify lending someone like Jesse Helms credibility, or pandering to the same corporate fuckers responsible for world debt by showing at the Super Bowl. It's a long way from "New Year's Day" to "Beautiful Day," that's for fucking sure.
We've got no trouble with Edge, Larry and Adam, though. They're cool.
My reaction to the article:
Firstly, I read the article knowing that it WOULD NOT be objective b/c these guys hate Bono. Some of their points were nonsense and silly:
1. "we don't care that he is trying to change from within,"--they are just ignoring Bono's good work b/c they don't like him
2. "they spent the last half of the nineties wallowing in commercial and artistic relevance."--that is just not completely true; they DID NOT "wallow" and DID NOT care about being commercially relevent(especially in the States) during they 90's; if they did they would not have had the guts to experiment in the 1st place!
3. the only people on the planet who know where the passion for writing the songs on ATYCLB or any other album(such as their experimentation that is mentioned)are the 4 members of the band; for someone to state that he or she knows where the passion comes from is silly.
It pains me to admit that I agree with some of this piece, though. Some examples:
1. U2 tix ARE TOO expensive
2. U2 has over-exposed themselves over the past year-and-a-half and much of this exposure has not been simply b/c of 9/11 so that is not totally a justifiable excuse(Leno, Letterman, Super Bowl, Grammys(twice), MTV Awards twice, NBA Halftime, TRL, VH1, etc...)
3. I sometimes wonder whether U2 really felt compelled to "go back to scratch" or if they are just catering to their American audience and capitalizing on the slow reamergence of rock(Creed, Incubus, System of a Down, P.O.D., etc...).
4. I did not like the fact that U2 WENT ON TRL; it is one thing to sell yourself and try to "fuck up the mainstream," but this appearance wreaked of "please love me."
5. Bono once said, "be careful of TV, it minimizes what you do."--this one is defenseless and it makes Bono look like a hypocrite.
I realize that this is a lengthy post. U2 and Bono(admittedly, he deserves some of this and it is expected b/c he comes across as an arrogant, opinionated jerk sometimes) in particular have been getting reamed in the media over this past week and I have been trying to understand where some of the cynisism is coming from. Some of it is ignorant, nonsensible and laughable. Other parts of it actually seem to make a lot of sense and has made me re-think my outlook on U2. I still thorougly enjoy their music and maybe I always will b/c they connect with me like no other music. However, I sometimes wonder what their motivation, goals and intentions truly are.
I hope that you reply and involve yourself in this on this subject and/or ethical dilemma.
I find the hateful articles in life to be the most interesting for a few reasons:
1. I am curious to see the "other side" of a point of view in order to compare it to mine
2. they are much more amusing, interesting and/or provacative than a complimentary article.
Anyway, let me preface by saying that this excerpt was taken from the "Well Hung" section of the current Rolling Stone Magazine. The authors of this article(Jason Cohen and another fellow who I cannot recall at the moment) have a strong hatred and bias against Bono. I am a frequent reader of Rolling Stone and to be fair, they are usually very favorable toward U2. If you have any anger to vent, please try to direct it toward someone other than Rolling Stone. I am very cusious to read your replies(you can reply to the authors at SQWUBBSY@AOL.COM).
BANALITY OF EVIL AWARD: Bono
This one really ought to be named after the little prick. See, what you people can't seem to fathom is that U2 spent the last half of the Nineties wallowing in artistic and commercial relevance. They didn't "get back to rock" because of passion. They "applied for the job" of BBITW because that's what it is to them -- a job. The kids wanna rock, they said, so we'll ditch this techno stuff (which was an equally desperate aesthetic
choice, the first time their experimentation felt motivated by external rather than internal forces). The only bands that matter are on TRL, so we'll pander to that. Clear Channel is gonna give us the most money and that will help us get more radio play, so we'll cast our lot with them, and we'll have $45 general admission seats so nobody
notices we're charging $130 for the good ones. We don't care about Bono's attempts to "change the system from within" -- it still doesn't justify lending someone like Jesse Helms credibility, or pandering to the same corporate fuckers responsible for world debt by showing at the Super Bowl. It's a long way from "New Year's Day" to "Beautiful Day," that's for fucking sure.
We've got no trouble with Edge, Larry and Adam, though. They're cool.
My reaction to the article:
Firstly, I read the article knowing that it WOULD NOT be objective b/c these guys hate Bono. Some of their points were nonsense and silly:
1. "we don't care that he is trying to change from within,"--they are just ignoring Bono's good work b/c they don't like him
2. "they spent the last half of the nineties wallowing in commercial and artistic relevance."--that is just not completely true; they DID NOT "wallow" and DID NOT care about being commercially relevent(especially in the States) during they 90's; if they did they would not have had the guts to experiment in the 1st place!
3. the only people on the planet who know where the passion for writing the songs on ATYCLB or any other album(such as their experimentation that is mentioned)are the 4 members of the band; for someone to state that he or she knows where the passion comes from is silly.
It pains me to admit that I agree with some of this piece, though. Some examples:
1. U2 tix ARE TOO expensive
2. U2 has over-exposed themselves over the past year-and-a-half and much of this exposure has not been simply b/c of 9/11 so that is not totally a justifiable excuse(Leno, Letterman, Super Bowl, Grammys(twice), MTV Awards twice, NBA Halftime, TRL, VH1, etc...)
3. I sometimes wonder whether U2 really felt compelled to "go back to scratch" or if they are just catering to their American audience and capitalizing on the slow reamergence of rock(Creed, Incubus, System of a Down, P.O.D., etc...).
4. I did not like the fact that U2 WENT ON TRL; it is one thing to sell yourself and try to "fuck up the mainstream," but this appearance wreaked of "please love me."
5. Bono once said, "be careful of TV, it minimizes what you do."--this one is defenseless and it makes Bono look like a hypocrite.
I realize that this is a lengthy post. U2 and Bono(admittedly, he deserves some of this and it is expected b/c he comes across as an arrogant, opinionated jerk sometimes) in particular have been getting reamed in the media over this past week and I have been trying to understand where some of the cynisism is coming from. Some of it is ignorant, nonsensible and laughable. Other parts of it actually seem to make a lot of sense and has made me re-think my outlook on U2. I still thorougly enjoy their music and maybe I always will b/c they connect with me like no other music. However, I sometimes wonder what their motivation, goals and intentions truly are.
I hope that you reply and involve yourself in this on this subject and/or ethical dilemma.