Niceman, your suggestion seems to be this: the opinion of U2's being a bit past their most vital period makes the opinion-holder stuck in the past!
Do I have that right?
I think that is pretty wrong. It's almost universal in rock music that people under 40 make the more vital music. There are some obvious reasons for this -- rock music is fast, vital, visceral, and a bit 'in the moment' rather than eternal. These are all qualities that tend to come from youth. Rock is also quite simple, musically, and thus after 10 or 20 years groups run out of new variations on the same themes. U2 have obviously done extremely well in fighting the middle-age flab, and should be given credit for maintaining their mammoth commercial appeal, as well as for the energy of their live shows.
However, I don't think there's any reasonable way to say that anything they've done after their mid- to late-30s has been new, different, or overly vital. It's been good, perhaps, but not career-defining or new.
(I say this as someone who considers Atomic Bomb to be U2's 4th or 5th best album, lest I be accused of loving only the old stuff.)
Finally, your implication that "the newer stuff is always more vital" is clearly wrong, as anyone who has followed the careers of, say, Michael Jackson or Bryan Adams would attest.
I respect your opinions if you love the new stuff, but I'm pointing out that saying "the old stuff was better = wrong" is just as wrong as saying "the new stuff is better = correct".
Well, there was meant to be a bit of tongue in cheek in my post, but no - I don't think newer always means better.
For the record - I think ATYCLB was probably their worst record ever, and HTDAAB somewhere in the middle. NLOTH - well, I do think it's their third best.
I think they've done a crap job promoting it by picking the worst single choices they could have made.
(Should have been MOS - NLOTH - IGCIIDGCT - Magnificent, IMHO)
And I think, like the best U2 albums, it takes people a while to GET what is going on. When the album first came out I know a lot of people who didn't like it, but I also know that a few of them are starting to change their minds after sitting with it for a while.
As far as artists doing their best work before 40 - don't forget what a new world rock n roll is. It didn't exist 2 generations ago. I think the rules are, or at least should be, still being written. U2 and David Bowie have continued to do exciting work later in the lives. In other art forms; poetry, novel-writing, painting, composing, sculpture, the artists continue to get better as they get older until they die scribbling out their final masterpieces. Why is rock n roll different? Is it something necessary about the art, or simply a trap that our society has fallen into? Why the worship of the young, inexperienced, and niave?
I don't know, but I don't think that any artist has to lose the magic when they turn 40 or 50 or 60, but there are a number of factors that make it harder. Drugs ruin the brain. Money makes you soft. Family can take the place of importance in your life (I think this one DID happen to the band at one point.) You can become afraid that your new work could never be as good as your early work and simply not try. (Pink Floyd, The Beatles.)
But I don't think its necessary. I don't think that great artists lose the fire when the reach a certain age. they shouldn't. Mozart didn't. I think U2 has made some misteps, but I don't think they ever lost themselves the way The Rolling Stones, or REM did. They are, in many ways, better performers than they have ever been. they ARE trying to challenge themselves still.
I don't think NLOTH is lost the way they were on, say ATYCLB. Is it as good as Achtung or JT? No...... but it might be their third best record, and I think - I honestly do believe when I hear songs like Unknown Caller, NLOTH, Moment of Surrender, even I'll Go Crazy, that they are going to do their best work in the future, not the 80s or 90s.....
You asked specifically if I thought anything they had done post mid 30s was career defining? Well, Beautiful Day is the obvious one. Off that same record, I think IALW and the 2005 live version of Kite also rank. And don't underestimate how popular City of Blinding Lights is. Obama asked them to play it on his inaugeration, and when I saw the band play it in Boston last week, I overheard a woman say "This song is the reason why I'm here!"
And then there's the new record: Moment of Surrender is my favorite song right now, period. No Line on the Horizon (The song) is as good as anything they've done. Will these two songs get the credit they deserve? No, it doesn't seem like they will right away...... but 10, 20 years from now I believe they will be on the short list of U2's best work.
). Edge's guitar shines and Larry's drumming fits so well with the song.
