Polikarpov U-2
During his interview in Esquire, Gene Simmons of the iconic rock group, KISS, stated:
"It's very sad for new bands. My heart goes out to them. They just don't have a chance. If you play guitar, it's almost impossible. You're better off not even learning how to play guitar or write songs, and just singing in the shower and auditioning for The X Factor. And I'm not slamming The X Factor, or pop singers. But where's the next Bob Dylan? Where's the next Beatles? Where are the songwriters? Where are the creators? Many of them now have to work behind the scenes, to prop up pop acts and write their stuff for them.
Here's a frightening thought: from 1958 to 1983, name 100 musical anythings that are iconic, that seem to last beyond their time.
NS: The Beatles, The Stones...
GS: Elvis, the Beatles, Michael Jackson, the Stones, Jimi Hendrix, the numerous classic Motown artists, Madonna, U2, Prince, Pink Floyd... The list goes on. Individuals, all unanimously considered classic, timeless, revolutionary. Now from '84 until today, name some. Just give me a few — artists that, even after their passing, are or will be inescapable. Artists on the same level as the ones I just mentioned. Even if you don't like them, they will be impossible to avoid, or deny, even after they've stopped making music and maybe passed on. In fact, they become bigger when they stop. Name artists that even compare with the ones I just named.
NS: Nirvana?
GS: Nirvana. That's about it. They are the notable exception. Keep thinking. It's harder, isn't it, to name artists with as much confidence? The pickings are so slim, and it's not an arbitrary difference. There was a 10- to 15-year period in the '60s and '70s that gave birth to almost every artist we now call "iconic," or "classic." If you know anything about what makes longevity, about what makes something an everlasting icon, it's hard to find after that. The craft is gone, and that is what technology, in part, has brought us. What is the next Dark Side of the Moon? Now that the record industry barely exists, they wouldn't have a chance to make something like that. There is a reason that, along with the usual top-40 juggernauts, some of the biggest touring bands are half old people, like me."
U2 will always be one of those icons. Their songs often asks the deeper questions, their lyrics conveying a desire to reveal more than the stereotypical "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" anthem.
I don't agree with all that Gene Simmon's expressed in that interview, but it is true that bands like the Stones, Van Halen, the Beatles, as well as U2 are fewer and farther in comparison to what we are seeing today.
I'm still listening through Songs of Innocence, but at the very least, U2 continues to step out of the comfort zone, take risks, and truly create music rather than just make music.
Bono is a raging lefty elitist who thinks YOU should pay confiscatory taxes, but nobody better touch a dime of his money.
I find that reduces any enjoyment I might have had in a band.
See: ditzy chicks, Moby, Fiona Apple, and Sheryl Crow the typhoid spreader.
They aren’t all that original. I remember when they were basically ripping off Joy Division for all their riffs. I also remember when the U2 “3” EP came out and “Out Of Control” was the big hit single, with everything after that sounding quite similar.
This is by far the best U2 song they ever did:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgBtoiNxPyE
Bad.
I don’t care for U2 these days though. Whatever it was that they had, they lost.
And to answer the question what is the next Dark Side of the Moon?
There isn’t going to be another Dark Side of the Moon.
We are in a dark ages, and it is clearly reflected in our music and our “art”.
After Nirvana came the Joe Satriani stealers.
U2, from the inception, was a band that had a flaming peacock with a bullhorn, a saltbox to stand on, and empty ideas.
Entertainers are paid to entertain. I do NOT pay them to blather on about their particular politics.
I find it funny,that everybody who rushed to put that latest release of music on YouTube, had their posting MUTED, ‘according to YT copyright policies’.
I pretty much listen to International music now, there’s a great world of music out there beyond the Anglosphere. I find I actually enjoy music when I don’t understand they lyrics.
Gene Simmons (whose artistry consisted of makeup, platform shoes, a freakishky long tongue, and one actual hit song) sounds like a cranky old man who doesn’t like the music his kids listen to. My own father would point out that 1958-1983 featured almost no music from the supremely talented big band acts that he preferred.
On Gene Simmons challenge to name musical anythings from the last 25 years: my son would say Green Day, My Chemical Romance, No Doubt, and Smashing Pumpkins as some rock bands ... if you’re going to count Diana Ross from the earlier era then you have to count Beyonce from today (as a female diva who ditched the her original group when they were no longer of any use to her) ... if you’re going to count Madonna, then you have to count Lady Gaga (as ex-Catholic provocateur, with daddy issues and ever changing wardrobe) ... if you’re going to count MTV-created Michael Jackson, then you need to count Katy Perry (whose videos are have similar production quality, with self-deprecating humor instead of misplaced grandiosity) ... and then there a couple dozen hip-hop artists (most of whom I don’t care for although it’s hard to deny that someone like Dr. Dre is very talented, no matter what you think of the hip-hop lifestyle).
I love many of the same bands that Gene Simmons did because I grew up in that era. But it was an era with a limited number of media outlets and expensive recording technology, so the same hundred or so guitar-oriented rock bands would be on everyone’s list.
Today my son and his friends can record and mix an album in our basement and share it with a few hundred of their friends over youtube. I’m pretty sure they’re not as good as The Beatles, but I’m not at all sure he and his friends aren’t making better music than Gene Simmons did.
Ear of the beholder. A few good songs but that’s about it.
U2 were good then after the Joshua tree they went mediocre. They had a few good songs after that but nothing that compared to the energy and vibe they had pre-Joshua tree. It goes to show how success can have a negative effect, it’s like they were hungry then got the food then went to sleep. Probably the best I ever seen them was when they played Red rocks 1983. Everything was right in the pocket, great songs with a great unique sound and just the band playing, none of this Broadway show crap.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BrJ_2xf8Rg
I, too, am a huge fan. The Irish tend to be a poetic people, perhaps their history has led them to be less superficial. When over there as a college student I chatted with guys in a pub & even with the normal flirting, the conversation was much deeper & more sincere than any one I had ever had at a bar in the US.
I love the music of U2 and thought the one concert I went to was amazing.
It's kind of a trick question. A Baby Boomer naming things he finds iconic that were created by Baby Boomers. Well of course he remembers his time the most.
But, that era did have two natural advantages. 1) The cohort is so huge that whatever they consumed became iconic by definition. It wasn't better, but due to demography and technology, more available. For every "Beatles" there were 100 "Stark Naked and the Car Thieves". With so many acts, something was bound to bubble up and get consumed. 2)The delivering technology forced everyone into a very focused space (40 songs more or less at any given time). Now, you don't have to wait around to be spoon fed the latest music by Kasey Kasem, or one of the suits at Capitol Records. Music that used to be esoteric, now has viable delivery channels.
Your Gene Simmons excerpt was more interesting than the article.
“...but it is true that bands like the Stones, Van Halen, the Beatles, as well as U2 are fewer and farther in comparison to what we are seeing today.”
There is tremendous new music being made in all sorts of different styles. It just won’t be popular in the foreseeable future. Finding non-popular good music is easier than it has ever been thanks to the internet.
Yes, it stinks that millions of people will never be exposed to it together like they used to be. But if you are more than a casual music fan it is a great time to find the sort of stuff that you dig.
FReegards
I think music is still creative and great. My kids are into all kinds of sounds, from new ska to Coheed and Cambria. Old music is great but so is new. The music one was young with is magical, for oneself. My dad has late stage alzheimers and when I play 50s music for him, he smiles and claps and is so happy.
I think Simmons makes a point insofar as music from the early 90s onward (with relatively few exceptions) seems more forgettable and "disposable" to me, than what came before.
On the other hand, the staying power of the pop music of the '80s that I grew up on may be due to the fact that it's currently faddish. Also, what we think of as "classic rock" from the '60s-'80s is really quite different from what got a lot of radio airplay in those decades. My public library has a series of CDs titled "Have a Nice Day: Super Hits of the 70s" (about 25 discs in all), which is a compilation of pop hits from the 1970s. Many of the songs are familiar (and a lot of them topped the Billboard chart at the time). But a playlist from those albums will sound nothing like a playlist from the local classic-rock station, which will play lots of Supertramp, Pink Floyd, Van Halen, U2, etc., but no Shaun Cassidy, Melanie, Orleans, or Bay City Rollers.
Obviously after a few decades we've winnowed out what we consider "classic" from the 1970s vs. what was momentarily popular but ultimately forgettable. Perhaps in a decade or two we'll have done the same for the 90s, 2000s, etc.