Quote:
Originally Posted by bethelblues
This is how I read U2 earlier. I wonder if it's too harsh a read of them--let me know if anyone agrees or if I'm completely off. The reason I put U2 in my original post is after having read articles on greatest bands, ranked lists, I noticed critics were placing them in their top 10. U2 just finished within the last two years the biggest concert tour of all time: their 360 show. They are the biggest band in the world today. Yes, they are packing stadiums (not arenas, football stadiums!!), but I don't see them as a hugely innovative group. Yes, they have one great album, The Joshua Tree, but they are helped in these conversations because Bono is such a big shot. His celebrity presence is massive and on a scale that neither Stevie nor anyone else in Fleetwood Mac ever reached. They also have won around 20 Grammy awards, showing the huge industry respect for Bono and his worldly causes. I don't for a second think their songs were ever as socially relevant as the Rolling Stones or The Beatles, though they certainly have tried to insert themselves into the zeitgeist.
|
Early on U2 was pretty innovative, out of necessity to some extent. But that's really a recurring rock 'n roll story. I don't think U2 would be as relevant today if they hadn't reinvented themselves. Remember all the flack they took with Joshua Tree and Rattle & Hum for turning to the blues? Now, looking back, that was the right move to make. And I don't think it was contrived like some of what followed. I'm thinking of Discotheque type stuff.
Before I ever got into U2, I remember fans of the band talking about how their shows were transcendent, like nothing any other band did. You can't minimize that as huge part of the band's mystique. Bono is a blowhard, but he's also very charismatic, and many millions of people around the world love him.