GTHobbes wrote:PK, I haven't heard any of those 3 albums so I can't argue with your take, but I'm curious what you have against bands sticking to what they do best. I got off the U2 train back when they veered off into leftfield with lemon and the whole fly thing. Other than the beatles, I can't think of any other bands who ditched their old style and went on to make something better. Anyways, just curious to hear your take.
GT:
Appreciate your post.
How do bands know what they do best if they never experiment or evolve? Do you honestly want your favorite band to sound the same every album? Doesn't that get boring? It sure as hell does for me.
Even Bon Jovi, one of the most commercial, formulaic rock bands of the last 25 years, tried a borderline country album a couple of years ago. It sucked, but I give the band credit for trying.
No one is the same at 25 as they were at 18. No one is the same at 40 as they were at 30. I think rock bands should show the same kind of evolution, the same kind of growth, the same kind of experimentation.
To me, music is art. And one of the hallmarks of great art, not just commercially driven portraits or lithographs by those like Kinkade or Rockwell, is a willingness to experiment, to stretch boundaries.
I don't like bands that reinvent themselves every album. That shows a lack of focus or a lack of inner voice. But I also don't like bands that strip-mine the same sound for more than two or three consecutive albums.
U2 is a fine example of a band that has changed gears seemingly at just the right time until now. "Boy" and "October" were earnest and guitar-driven. Then there was the martial assault of "War." Then the band consciously went for more of an etheral sound with producers Lanois and Eno on "The Unforgettable Fire." Those were followed by the fascination with Americana with "The Joshua Tree" and "Rattle and Hum."
At that point, U2 was huge. But it almost was becoming too messianic and sanctimonious for its own good, and the band was splintering. Bono knew that, and the band reformed and went to Berlin right after the fall of the wall and made the sludgy, Euro-rhythm-driven masterpiece "Achtung Baby." The dance influence continued with "Zooropa," which I think was vastly underrated. But then it all came off the rails when U2 tried to mine that sound for a third straight record with "Pop."
The band took a break and returned with "All You Can't Leave Behind," which was a superb signal that this was a mature band that had indeed left its "Fly" and "Mephisto" Eurotrash stage behind and was comfortable with being middle-age rockers. But we pretty much got the same thing with "Atomic Bomb" and this year's "No Line on the Horizon."
Is it because U2 has been diverse enough and endured enough that it's running out of influences? Or has the band found a comfortable groove finally after age 50 that it doesn't want to leave?
Either way, U2 has been so good for so long that it's entitled to take any route it chooses. But that doesn't mean that I must find it interesting.
Moving from the specific to the general, I can't think of a significant, long-lasting rock band that didn't evolve or morph its sound in at least one significant way during its career. It's the hallmark of a great band testing its limits.
Take care,
PK
"You know why I love boxers? I love them because they face fear. And they face it alone." - Nick Charles
"First on the throttle, last on the brakes." - @MotoGP Twitter signature
XBL Gamertag: pk4425