I will admit – I was that weird kid that loved Art History class. The hidden messages and critiques so prevalent in great art (and poetry and prose) fascinated me. Some artists would get paid well to create art by people with political views they disagreed with, and then would mock the people that paid them in the art that they paid for. Brilliant.
William Blake was a unique person by all counts, but especially in the sense that he mixed poetry and artwork. A true early pioneer in multimedia art. Even more interesting were his politics, especially his disillusionment with the French and American revolutions and his beliefs that they had “simply replaced monarchy with irresponsible mercantilism.” In other words, France and America wanted to be huge at any costs, and how is that different from monarchy?
So what does this have to do with the new U2 album? They were paid a huge sum of money to give their album away for free as a massive PR stunt and then named the album after the most famous poem of a poet that decried irresponsible mercantilism (something that Apple is constantly accused of). They got paid well to create art by a company that has been accused of killing good music and then mocked the company that paid them in the art that they paid for. Brilliant.
And don’t think for a second that Bono is too dense to not know all of this. Love him or hate him, the dude knows his political commentary and how to work in subtle jabs to those in power while still shaking hands with them and taking their money.
But none of that should matter to the music fan. Music should stand or fall on its own regardless of political or corporate influences. I’m frankly embarrassed that so many reviewers are letting these issue influence their enjoyment or hatred of this album.
Because Songs of Innocence is not an album for everyone. I connected with it instantly and repeated listens have reinforced my love for it. There is an urgency, a passion, a drive that was missing a bit from No Line on the Horizon. Sure there, was some of that on NLotH, but it was marred by songs like “Get on Your Boots” that found the band trying too hard to not make another “Vertigo” out of a song that was obviously meant to be another “Vertigo.” That lack of confidence in their song kicked the legs out of a song that should have been the tent pole for the rest of the album.
I initially loved No Line on the Horizon and then started to fall out of love after a few listens. I still really like much of it, but see the holes and issues with it. Songs of Innocence only grows more interesting with each listen. U2 decided to go back to their roots for inspiration and it shows. This is not U2 being sadly inspired by bands that they inspired back in the day. This is U2 going back to their roots and being inspired by the same things that more modern bands are also inspired by. In other words, if you hear a sad attempt to sound like The Killers sounding like U2, you are not listening close enough to differentiate between what the real inspirations are for both bands. Which no one is requiring you to if you are a fan – I just wish people paid to write reviews at least knew how to make those differentiation. But I guess Bill Mallonee is right and true rock journalism is dead.
Songs of Innocence won’t connect with everyone, and that is okay with me. But at least let it connect or not connect with you because of how it was performed and not how it was distributed. Don’t love it or hate it just because it was free.
[2014 Island Records | Download: iTunes]
Leave a Reply