One could also argue, though, that by the period of what you consider their greatest output - Zooropa/Passengers (correct me if I'm wrong) - Bono no longer held the view that music itself could affect change.
I would counter that this view came about much earlier. In the song "God Part II" Bono wrote,"I don't believe that Rock 'N Roll can really change the world." While there are several interpretations of this line, it suggests Bono's views of music revolutionizing one's thoughts were fading as early as 1988 (and I personally don't think he ever truly felt that way).
As for the rest, I don't think I'm quite as pessimistic about the potential for another masterpiece, but I essentially agree with what you're saying. Looking back at the past decade... if I'm honest my expectations for what U2 is capable of creating have lowered. That said, I will buy the new album the day it comes out and will listen to it incessantly for the first week or so, and would love for them to completely shatter my expectations.
I'm on the fence here.
First, I never felt any of U2's so-called masterpieces were flawless. While JT has some oustandingly elegant songs, much of the album sounds the same. While AB is brilliant, some lyrics are questionable and some passion is gone. I also acknowledge that some of U2's recent output is "safe", but I hear quite a bit of innovation there.
Then there's this whole "roots" thing.
What exactly are U2's "roots?" For every "The Fly",there is a "Fast Cars". For every "Mysterious Ways" there is a "Beautiful Day". Songs like "Mofo", which were unique for U2, were really U2's attempt at current European music at the time. Plus the recent output is similar to very early in U2's career ("Boy" and "October") where U2 seemed to focus more on the song, rather than the album. And from that perspective, it worked. But again I ask, what roots exactly? Because it seems that U2 have looked at all of their past and just updated it for the 21st century.
Some people like the lyrics and mood of earlier U2, but I don't feel it's appropriate for 45+ year old men to be screaming about the "injustice of the world". At that age, they've been around long enough to do something about it, not complain about it. That is, what works in one's twenties, doesn't in one's forties. Can any of you go back 15-20 yeasrs (if you are even that old!) and act the same way now as you did then? Beliefs, morals, values and views change. Bono (as well as the rest of U2) is more about action now and less about preaching.
While I appreciate Axver's perspective, to me, it's subjective. Every U2 era has gems and cubic zirconia - but which is which is personal. Bono's voice was brilliant on the Love Town tour, for example, but he often resorted to a operatic falsetto (the infamous "Kermit" voice) to hit notes (that he normally did with a full open-throat voice) and he had a lot of vocal problems. Gems or zirconia? Edge may have gone wild with the guitar at times, but that only made him sound more like many other rock guitarists. Gem or Zirconia? Axver hates "One", a song some consider one of the best ever written. Yet, I get chastised for not loving JT. Gems or zirconia?
Some may feel the recent U2 output is "safe" and not innovative enough. Yet, based on overall sales, accolades and tour success, one could argue that clearly the general public loves it - even if some diehards do not. Gems or zirconia?
With that in mind, I'm sure the new album will be the same. Maybe Axver will love it - will other diehards? Should U2 even care about public opinion? It's easy to say "no", but I say "yes". Whenever I work hard on something, I want others to see it and enjoy it. Heck, I wildly decorated for Halloween and I'm having two parties just so everyone can see my hard work! But some may still prefer a more personal U2. Nothing wrong with that, but is that what U2 wants?
So while I do agree U2 are at a crossroads, how they respond is tricky. And the bottom line is that it won't please everyone no matter what they make. After all, not everyone adores JT or AB.
All I hope is that U2's effort over these past 4+ years yields something truly inspirational. I don't need innovative - because really, what is out there musically that would not only "fit" U2, but is truly that different from everything else? Slow, safe, rocking, wild, roots, emulation or innovative - all are fine as it's all really about passion and inspiration. JT works because of it. AB works because of it. ATYCLB works because of it. Hopefully the next album does so again.
cause I didn´t agree with your opinion....
Seriously? I would have never guessed that you would say something like that!
If you weren't including things like that, it's on you.
)
