popkidu2
War Child
From @u2: http://www.atu2.com/news/article.src?ID=2977
Chris Thomas: U2's Chosen One?
@U2, April 30, 2003
Angela Pancella
As a fan, I don't want good albums from U2. I want great ones.
I think they want to make great albums, too -- masterpieces, works that can stand with the best the great bands of the past had to offer. But I also think this may become tougher the longer U2 stick it out.
I don't say this because I believe the standard assumption -- that a great rock band has a limited shelf life, that it can only be at its creative peak for a short time and then, if it does not implode, it must fade into irrelevance. Just because most bands don't last doesn't mean they can't last. Even so, I don't discount the negative impact the "live fast, die young" mentality has had on rock culture. "Old" bands like U2 have to fight harder as they go. That's why the marketing for All That You Can't Leave Behind was so aggressive. They showed up for promotional TV appearances -- on Total Request Live, on Farmclub -- that some would have considered beneath their dignity. They had to do them because "dignity" is an old-person word, and for a rock band, anything with the slightest scent of old-person about it is fatal.
Still, perceptions can be nudged by marketing, and U2 are marketing geniuses. I am not concerned with their ability to sell albums. An album doesn't have to be great to sell well, and in fact there are many works of art that were ignored or scorned in their time but which later were recognized as works of genius. Does this mean the band may have to choose whether they want to be liked or to be great? They do not subscribe to the music snob fallacy -- that if something is popular, then it can't be very good. An Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome results from this belief -- a band will put out something tuneless, and because it is unlistenable the music snobs will fall all over it with praise, declaring it something only the most discerning audience can appreciate. U2 have managed to sidestep this so far. Many critics have allowed that they are both popular and worthwhile. U2 themselves seem happiest competing in the marketplace, in the court of public opinion, not the tribunal of musical taste arbiters. Will they risk alienating an audience to make a challenging record -- not "challenging" in the sense of "a genuinely unpleasant listening experience," just something that takes longer to digest?
They've taken that risk in the past -- Achtung Baby, Zooropa and Pop are recent examples of albums that take quite a few spins to begin to appreciate. All That You Can't Leave Behind's charms are more immediate -- it seems a "safer" album. When it was released, I found myself thinking it was an attempt to muster forces, to win as many people to the U2 cause as could be won before they threw another curve ball. You have to have an audience before you challenge it, after all, and quite a lot of people had left the fold during their decade-long wandering in the ether.
So this is a time of speculation. What are U2 going for -- a great album or a popular one? With word that Chris Thomas will be producing, their intentions are still unclear. He has worked on classics -- The Beatles' White Album, the Sex Pistols' Never Mind the Bollocks... -- but he has Bryan Adams and latter-day Elton John in his credits as well. So they could go shocking or safe, or perhaps they are searching for a synthesis of the two, the long-elusive MOR punk. It's too soon to tell.
There is this to consider -- the proper producer for them is becoming harder to find. For most fans, the ideal production team remains Eno/Lanois, but because they've worked with them so long, U2 might be better served by some fresh ears. The trouble is that with 20+ years in the business, U2 themselves have more experience than the vast majority of producers out there. Some of the current crop hailed as innovators may just be riding trends; truly talented young producers might lose their critical powers by being in the presence of "legends" and let U2 get by with things they shouldn't. Or they might just lack the experience to bring more out of the band's sound than has been brought out before. With these things to consider, Chris Thomas seems a very good choice -- a man with a long history and classics in that history, yet someone new to U2 who can add fresh perspective.
Thinking about these issues at all may be just so much more U2 trainspotting. But if being in a rock band is a respectable line of work, those of us who care about the output of such a band should give them some thought, if only to engage in a kind of quality control. I want a great album from U2. I hope Chris Thomas can help get another one out of them.
? @U2/Pancella, 2003
I couldn't have said it better myself...
Chris Thomas: U2's Chosen One?
@U2, April 30, 2003
Angela Pancella
As a fan, I don't want good albums from U2. I want great ones.
I think they want to make great albums, too -- masterpieces, works that can stand with the best the great bands of the past had to offer. But I also think this may become tougher the longer U2 stick it out.
I don't say this because I believe the standard assumption -- that a great rock band has a limited shelf life, that it can only be at its creative peak for a short time and then, if it does not implode, it must fade into irrelevance. Just because most bands don't last doesn't mean they can't last. Even so, I don't discount the negative impact the "live fast, die young" mentality has had on rock culture. "Old" bands like U2 have to fight harder as they go. That's why the marketing for All That You Can't Leave Behind was so aggressive. They showed up for promotional TV appearances -- on Total Request Live, on Farmclub -- that some would have considered beneath their dignity. They had to do them because "dignity" is an old-person word, and for a rock band, anything with the slightest scent of old-person about it is fatal.
Still, perceptions can be nudged by marketing, and U2 are marketing geniuses. I am not concerned with their ability to sell albums. An album doesn't have to be great to sell well, and in fact there are many works of art that were ignored or scorned in their time but which later were recognized as works of genius. Does this mean the band may have to choose whether they want to be liked or to be great? They do not subscribe to the music snob fallacy -- that if something is popular, then it can't be very good. An Emperor's New Clothes Syndrome results from this belief -- a band will put out something tuneless, and because it is unlistenable the music snobs will fall all over it with praise, declaring it something only the most discerning audience can appreciate. U2 have managed to sidestep this so far. Many critics have allowed that they are both popular and worthwhile. U2 themselves seem happiest competing in the marketplace, in the court of public opinion, not the tribunal of musical taste arbiters. Will they risk alienating an audience to make a challenging record -- not "challenging" in the sense of "a genuinely unpleasant listening experience," just something that takes longer to digest?
They've taken that risk in the past -- Achtung Baby, Zooropa and Pop are recent examples of albums that take quite a few spins to begin to appreciate. All That You Can't Leave Behind's charms are more immediate -- it seems a "safer" album. When it was released, I found myself thinking it was an attempt to muster forces, to win as many people to the U2 cause as could be won before they threw another curve ball. You have to have an audience before you challenge it, after all, and quite a lot of people had left the fold during their decade-long wandering in the ether.
So this is a time of speculation. What are U2 going for -- a great album or a popular one? With word that Chris Thomas will be producing, their intentions are still unclear. He has worked on classics -- The Beatles' White Album, the Sex Pistols' Never Mind the Bollocks... -- but he has Bryan Adams and latter-day Elton John in his credits as well. So they could go shocking or safe, or perhaps they are searching for a synthesis of the two, the long-elusive MOR punk. It's too soon to tell.
There is this to consider -- the proper producer for them is becoming harder to find. For most fans, the ideal production team remains Eno/Lanois, but because they've worked with them so long, U2 might be better served by some fresh ears. The trouble is that with 20+ years in the business, U2 themselves have more experience than the vast majority of producers out there. Some of the current crop hailed as innovators may just be riding trends; truly talented young producers might lose their critical powers by being in the presence of "legends" and let U2 get by with things they shouldn't. Or they might just lack the experience to bring more out of the band's sound than has been brought out before. With these things to consider, Chris Thomas seems a very good choice -- a man with a long history and classics in that history, yet someone new to U2 who can add fresh perspective.
Thinking about these issues at all may be just so much more U2 trainspotting. But if being in a rock band is a respectable line of work, those of us who care about the output of such a band should give them some thought, if only to engage in a kind of quality control. I want a great album from U2. I hope Chris Thomas can help get another one out of them.
? @U2/Pancella, 2003
I couldn't have said it better myself...
