Friday, February 27, 2009

U2 for me and you - An Album Review


No Line on the Horizon is the 12th studio album by U2. After twelve albums and over 30 years as a band one might wonder whether or not U2 still has any relevance, musically and commercially or if they, like many other bands of equalled success are simply trying to cash in.

The band's recent success has had some critics suggesting that the band has lost it's edge, relevance and thirst for making important music. U2 before 2000 was if anything an adventure in music. The journey beginning with the youthful exuberance and simplicity of their debut, Boy. It would continue with the post punk sound and social relevance brought upon by War and the Unforgettable Fire. To some the journey would reach it's peak when the band explored America, classic rock and definitions of spirituality in The Joshua Tree. For others, the peak of the mountain would be Achtung Baby, the album that saved the band from internal turmoil. It was an album covered in layers of fuzzy guitars and dance grooves, along with Zooropa, the two albums explored the bands more intimate conflicts such as the sacrifices of faith, devotion, love as well as the idea of solitude in a digital age.  Pop (a personal favorite, despite poor reviews) would be the bands confession on commercialism and the guilt brought upon excess and ignorance presented in techno-color and techno music. After Pop and the Popmart tour received mixed reviews, U2 would emerge triumphantly in 2000 with All That You Can't Leave Behind. It was a back to basics return for U2, an album comprised of pop songs reminding many fans of the inspired and hopeful U2 of the 80's. U2 would continue this rejuvenation with How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb in 2004. Both albums would have some of the personal touches of their 90's work as Bono would explore themes brought upon by his father's death but many would find the music as well as the lyrics complacent. The two previous efforts were comprised of well crafted, signature pop songs that did nothing to challenge the band but simply staple their legacy.



Since 2000 some have wondered whether or not U2 could push the envelope once again. Some forget or casually dismiss that 15 - 20 years ago U2 was one of the great and innovating bands of their time. Before Nirvana or Radiohead, before Coldplay and TV On the Radio,  U2 was a leading force in creating new sights and sounds for the musical landscape. Much of that innovation seems to have been lost on their previous two records but...No More!



No Line On the Horizon is a welcomed return of a band wanting to shake things up. It no longer plays on the successful sounds of their previous records. Instead U2 have chosen a path somewhat reminiscent of their Zooropa era sound. Zooropa which is clearly the bands darkest album filled with dance hooks, keyboards and pulsing bass lines is the younger brother to this new record. Or if you will the album you got drunk to the evening prior. No Line On the Horizon could easily be seen as a follow up, or the hang over cure. 3 of 4 best (and absolutely fantastic) tracks, "Magnificent," "Fez-Being Born" and the title track all have a familiarity to them that jump start where Zooropa left off. There is a drive, a punch and a reach to the sky on these new recordings that was missing from Zooropa. The synth on the title track reminiscent of some of the U2 b-sides of the early 90's, while "Magnificent" starts off like a New Order track, only to be broken by Bono's soaring vocal. "Fez-Being Born" begins with a Bono shouting from a distance, "let me in the sound," a theme repeated throughout the album. As if Bono and company have been left off the guest list.  If you are yearning for the U2 of the early 90's but crave their current optimism then these tracks are for you.


"Moment of Surrender" is an absolutely beautiful song. It is a soulful harmony with musical touches that might remind some of the U2/Eno collaboration, Passengers: Original Soundtrack 1. It is also a reminder, like the track "White As Snow" that U2 can write a decent ballad while trying to reach for the stars or a warm blanket instead of the top 40 charts. "I'll Go Crazy If I Don't Go Crazy Tonight" is really the only pure single on the record and it is the most catchy U2 song since, "Beautiful Day."


"Unknown Caller" is an interesting concept but falls a little flat at times, due to some vague lyrics. It is a song in which a dazed figure receives messages from his phone via caller or text to push forward. The song never achieves the darkness or the heroic rise that it should call for. "Breathe" is a frantic song that is quite solid as well as the the confessional, "Cedars of Lebanon."


The albums two weakest moments are the tracks, "Get On Your Boots" and "Stand Up Comedy." Why, "Get On Your Boots" would serves as the first single is beyond me. Both songs try to promote opposition to those who oppress and open arms to love but Bono has written many lines that don't make sense or do not correlate with one another. If getting on your boots is the one thing we must do, to take charge then why don't we know how beautiful you are, as the music suggests in "Get On Your Boots." Not to mention the other occasional lyrical missteps. "Stand Up Comedy" references the Twin Towers and Napoleon and with each reference comes the "what?" response. It is a shame because both songs have a great sound. "Boots" is the most theatrical and glam song that the band has written since, "Hold Me, Thrill Me, Kiss Me, Kill Me."


Is it the definitive U2 record? Absolutely not. Is it their best record ever? Absolutely not but if anything it could have been. After making two of the best albums in the past 30 years, (The Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby) it is a delight and honor to suggest that U2, can still make volatile music. With many doubters spitting in their face, while those they have inspired copycatting their way to musical supremacy (yes, you Coldplay) U2 does not seem ready or happy to simply coast into the sunset. It is an album that displays many of the bands musical strengths like the simplicity and muscular drive of the Edge's guitar work. Larry Mullen Jr. (drums) and Adam Clayton (bass) understand their roles as time keeper and hip shaker but there is such a clean precision to their craft that one must deaf not to appreciate their craft. Inspired, concerned, informed, romantic, questions with one answer, love. 

The title of this new record, No Line on The Horizon might suggest that U2's music and personality are not easily defined. Like the photo by Hiroshi Sugimoto used as the album cover may suggest, U2's music follows a diverse path in which the sky and the ocean collide into one, where the depths of the ocean and the limitless sky fade into one another and we become lost, not knowing where the journey truly ends or begins.

Friday, February 6, 2009

the Grammy Awards and why they suck!

I don’t know about you but I hate the Grammy Awards. I am not a big fan of most awards shows but I hate the Grammy awards because like most awards shows the Grammy’s do nothing but kiss industry ass. The Grammy awards are nothing but the music industry self-gratifying itself.

 

Here are some of my arguments.

 

The Non-Winners Argument - Sure, there is nothing wrong with a good debate about who wins awards and who doesn’t, why or how the award is won and so forth but here is a list of bands/artists that have never won a Grammy.

 

Led Zeppelin

Diana Ross

Queen

Neil Young (including Crosby, Stills, Nash & Young)

Bob Marley

Grateful Dead

The Doors

Lynyrd Skynyrd

The Who

Tupac

The Smiths

Sly and the Family Stone

Public Enemy

 

            Pretty impressive list, isn’t it? Also consider that the Clash hadn’t won a grammy until 2002, long after their career as a band was over. It took Steely Dan almost 30 years of recording to win their first grammy. Jimmy Cliff has only one Grammy. David Bowie has just one Grammy Award for best music video in 1984. Nirvana and Black Sabbath have only one victory while The Kinks, New Order, and the Cure don’t have any Grammy wins.

 

            Just Because You Win Doesn’t Mean You Are Any Good Argument – yes, winning might mean something like it was your year or you didn’t offend too many people with your music but there is a bias to these things. The Beatles, for instance is considered by many to be the greatest band of all time and they have only 7 Grammy awards. Sting, with or without the Police has almost double that at 13, which is the same amount of awards that Michael Jackson has won. Paul Simon has 12. Sheryl Crow has 9. Eric Clapton has 17. Norah Jones has 9. Not to discredit my two favorite artists, U2 and Bruce Springsteen but combined the two acts have 40 Grammy awards. Are any of these artists greater or more important than The Beatles? I am sure some of the artists above deserve some of their awards but I find it hard to believe that those who have never won, great acts like Sly and the Family Stone or the Who could not get any love.

 

            The Best New Artist Argument – Winning the Best New Artists can be a blessing or a curse. Since 1960 there have been artists like Jose Feliciano, Marvin Hamlisch, A Taste of Honey, Marc Cohn, Hootie and The Blowfish, and Shelby Lynne that have faded into obscurity since winning the award. Many of the nominees over the years have not fared very well either… do you remember Timi Yuro or Morris Albert? How about Dr. Buzzard’s Original Savannah Band? Nu Shooz? The Kentucky Headhunters? The Tony Rich Project? Heck, believe it or not Robin Williams was nominated for a Best New Artists Grammy.

Let us not forget that some artists when nominated weren’t exactly new. Fountains of Wayne were nominated for the award in 2004 after they had released their third album. Feist had won fans across the country and a Grammy nomination for best new artists in 2008 even though her debut album was released in 1999 with another album released in 2004 and a remix album in 2006.

 

 

            110 winners Argument- This year awards will be given out for 110 categories. Wow, can you even think of that many genres of music? I cannot. Is there really a necessity for an award given to the Best Surround Sound Album or an award for Best Album Notes? Is it necessary to have two spoken word categories, one for children and the other for adults? And do not get me started on why there are separate awards for contemporary and traditional world music, contemporary and traditional folk music and contemporary and traditional blues. What is the difference between the best R8B album and the best contemporary R&B album? The same question could be asked for best pop vocal and best traditional pop vocal. I don’t know why there is a separate award for Tropical Latin album and Urban Latin Album? Why is there a separate award for best Rock/Rap gospel album, best pop contemporary gospel album, best southern, country or bluegrass gospel album, best traditional gospel album and best contemporary R&B gospel album?  Oh I think I know why there are so many separate categories and nominations…. It is because with more nominees comes more winners and quite possibly bigger record sales. If you didn’t know, Grammy awards promote records sales and if you don’t believe me just keep reading.

 

Maybe these arguments don’t convince you at all. Maybe you love the Grammy Awards that much and could care less whether or not a mistake is made here or there. Maybe you think all those artists who never won a Grammy should not have won any. Maybe you think that the Grammy Awards are free from error.

 

If you are like me then you think the Grammy’s suck and they are nothing but a giant advert and campaign to sell more records. USA Today reported in 2007 that Grammy winners and performers had a boost in their record sales the week after the ceremony. Some artists had a small but still noticeable bump of 19% while acts like the Dixie Chicks had an increase in sales by 714%. That is no laughing matter. The Red Hot Chili Peppers had 194% increase. John Mayer had 182% increase. Artists like John Legend, Gnarls Barkley, Tony Bennet and Mary J. Blige all experienced increased sales of over 100%. Digital sales and radio audiences also increased following the 2007 Grammys.

 

I don’t know how much faith you put in the Grammy’s but maybe, just maybe after this or after your own careful examination you will think twice about the value of a Grammy award.