BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
U2 needs to realize that RELEVANCE is their currency. Not sales, not radio.
But RELEVANCE is subjective and changes with the times as well...
For instance who would you label relevant post napster, and why?
U2 needs to realize that RELEVANCE is their currency. Not sales, not radio.
U2 needs to realize that RELEVANCE is their currency. Not sales, not radio.
If they attempt to woo sales and radio as they did with Boots/Crazy/SUC they will cease being relevant, IMO. Just last night, the reference to "new songs" made me cringe. There is a tacit lack of confidence that has been sown by the lackluster reaction to the album and the songs in a live setting.
What has always set U2 apart is people come to see the new songs--they demand it. It seems less full throated this time around. Again, because I feel the songs aren't there. Even NLOTH, a song I like, doesn't sound all that great live--When I first heard that song I thought it was SURE to be the opener, and now I know why it isn't. It lacks something live.
News flash to Bono.
Fans, especially smart, discerning U2 fans, can understand and appreciate "complex" music (and will buy it if they like it). And give the music-buying public at large a little more credit too, for understanding and appreciating "complex" music. The problem here is that Bono is in denial about the greatness of NLOTH, not recognizing the fine line between complex music and dull, uninteresting music. Nobody cares how high-brow and sophisticated you are, just make some good songs and people of ALL demographics and all levels of "understanding" will want to hear it (the Beatles made some complex, conceptual music). Call me simple-minded, call me low brow, but I find the much critically-maligned Rattle & Hum far more listenable than NLOTH.
Sometimes three chords and the truth is enough.
Indie music (think Pitchfork) seems to, IMO, be the most culturally relevant happening in music today. Radiohead heads the list.
What?
News flash to Bono.
Fans, especially smart, discerning U2 fans, can understand and appreciate "complex" music (and will buy it if they like it). And give the music-buying public at large a little more credit too, for understanding and appreciating "complex" music. The problem here is that Bono is in denial about the greatness of NLOTH, not recognizing the fine line between complex music and dull, uninteresting music. Nobody cares how high-brow and sophisticated you are, just make some good songs and people of ALL demographics and all levels of "understanding" will want to hear it (the Beatles made some complex, conceptual music). Call me simple-minded, call me low brow, but I find the much critically-maligned Rattle & Hum far more listenable than NLOTH.
Sometimes three chords and the truth is enough.
I wouldn't expect a Kool-Aid® drinker to understand.
I wouldn't expect a Kool-Aid® drinker to understand.
News flash to Bono.
Fans, especially smart, discerning U2 fans, can understand and appreciate "complex" music (and will buy it if they like it). And give the music-buying public at large a little more credit too, for understanding and appreciating "complex" music. The problem here is that Bono is in denial about the greatness of NLOTH, not recognizing the fine line between complex music and dull, uninteresting music. Nobody cares how high-brow and sophisticated you are, just make some good songs and people of ALL demographics and all levels of "understanding" will want to hear it (the Beatles made some complex, conceptual music). Call me simple-minded, call me low brow, but I find the much critically-maligned Rattle & Hum far more listenable than NLOTH.
Sometimes three chords and the truth is enough.
Not part of the mainstream? If you sell 3.5 million copies you are part of the mainstream.3. U2 are old and not part of the mainstream anymore, Id be shocked if they had another top radio hit it would be unexpected.
I would say relevance touches upon radio and sales, but is more of a "cultural zeitgeist" thing.
Indie music (think Pitchfork) seems to, IMO, be the most culturally relevant happening in music today. Radiohead heads the list.
It's always reassuring that every single one of these threads about new material and the current musical landscape always go exactly the same way - sometimes they are almost identical word for word
right?
It's always reassuring that every single one of these threads about new material and the current musical landscape always go exactly the same way - sometimes they are almost identical word for word
I was getting worried there for a bit but then ultraviolet353 brought up Radiohead and then BAM!, mcaito hits us with the Kool-Aid® remark and gentlemen, we have lift off.
Not part of the mainstream? If you sell 3.5 million copies you are part of the mainstream.
Are there any other veteran artists that obsess over their relevance the way U2 does? Does R.EM. blame the media or the fans or complexity of their music for their "perceived" lack of relevance? Does Martin Gore of Depeche Mode worry about such matters? Or Bob Dylan for that matter? Does Bruce Springsteen make sure he has 3 bonafide hit songs in the chamber before releasing an album? Does Duran Duran talk about wanting to compete with Kings of Leon and The Killers? Or Metallica? Does Metallica ever set out to reclaim their "Biggest Band in the World" title?
I think it's easier for REM or Metallica to take this mentality, they've never been in U2's shoes. But I do know what you are saying, even PopMart was small compared to most of their contemporary's falls... U2 have extremely blessed and lucky, therefore it's somewhat of a curse.I think I know what U2's tragic heroic flaw is (finally!). They don't know how to be "not the biggest". If they can learn to accept not being the biggest every time around, i think they'd be a lot more inspired.
I don't think there's any problem with talk of the 45, it's even more pertinant now, hell even Radiohead said for a brief week that they were no longer going to work in album formats, that's it's dead.If the rule of the day was progressive rock, extended numbers, trippy psychadelia, i think that's what U2 would be producing. There wouldn't be all this talk of "the importance of the 45" - gimme a break.
the other problem that U2 has is that they are still relevant, and thus their "legend/myth" has yet to totally take root.
Springsteen, Dylan, even Depeche Mode and REM are essentially done. sure, they still put out great music, Springsteen still blows pretty much everyone else out of the water on stage, but these acts all have had their beginning, middle, and end. now it's all gravy. now, people can look back with their rose colored glasses at Dylan in the 60s, Bruce from 75-85, and REM from 85-95.
U2, as opposed to all these artists, are still going for it, still trying to be thought of by the kids in the same thought bubble as Coldplay and KOL and whoever else.
so, whether this produces good music or bad music is beside the point. they haven't been fixed into history yet. they're still writing their story. all is not said and done yet.
the other problem that U2 has is that they are still relevant, and thus their "legend/myth" has yet to totally take root.
Springsteen, Dylan, even Depeche Mode and REM are essentially done. sure, they still put out great music, Springsteen still blows pretty much everyone else out of the water on stage, but these acts all have had their beginning, middle, and end. now it's all gravy. now, people can look back with their rose colored glasses at Dylan in the 60s, Bruce from 75-85, and REM from 85-95.
U2, as opposed to all these artists, are still going for it, still trying to be thought of by the kids in the same thought bubble as Coldplay and KOL and whoever else.
so, whether this produces good music or bad music is beside the point. they haven't been fixed into history yet. they're still writing their story. all is not said and done yet.
Um... no.