New line on the horizon

By Paul Flower on Mar 5, 09 09:26 AM

It probably won't have escaped your notice that U2 have released a new album this week. They've hardly been keeping a low profile, popping up in the media almost as frequently as a DFS sale advert. The surprising news is that the album itself isn't bad, perhaps formulaic in places but I guess that if you're buying a U2 album you want to hear something that sounds like U2. They didn't get where they are today by trying to be something that they're not.

I suppose it's only really a surprise because the initial omens weren't good, they experimented with a couple of different producers before going back to tried and tested and the release date was delayed a couple of times - normally an indicator of commercial difficulties and songwriters-block. Then there was that first single. In retrospect 'Get On Your Boots' isn't that bad, it just isn't great being something of a lazy, quasi-funky re-tread of 'Vertigo', a groove in search of a song. There's also the fact that they're working it so hard, they haven't been this active in the promotional market for many years - usually a sign that we have to have our arm twisted to buy it.

Unfortunately the latter point is probably true. As less and less people go out and buy physical musical product (in CD form) these days, bands from the CD era have to work harder to get us to spend money. Given their status as probably the leading act of that generation - spawned in the 80's and gravitating to global stardom over two decades - U2 are the flag-bearers for the recorded music industry. If they don't sell, what will?

The big problem for bands like U2 - aside from carrying the weight of expectation of an entire industry in a recession - is whether to bother recording new music at all. That they've sold so many CDs in the past probably ensures that anything they release will have some commercial potential, even if that potential is probably shrinking in line with the industry itself.

There comes a point, however, when your new work cannot match the peaks of your prior achievements, when your best days are behind you. Take The Rolling Stones as an example. Could anyone really argue that the Stone have made a great (or even good) album in the last thirty years? In that same period they've released five to six live albums and at least as many greatest hits compilations. There must be a value in it but is that value just becoming an excuse for publicity - do the recorded works now only act as a platform for touring revenues in the same way that singles used to be great ads for albums?

We constantly hear that the music industry is in flux, we know (via conjecture or otherwise) that young people steal their music and using simple calculations it's becoming clear that mine may be the last generation to actually have a yearning to own music in a physical form. Whether this is totally true and whether we should really blame the download generation and the evil record companies for killing the sacred cow is open to debate. As our local record stores continue to close their doors permanently we can see the physical decline of the industry, it's out there - boarded up shop windows and acres of retail space going spare. zavvi (1).JPG

So, do U2 matter? More than ever it seems. Whilst we, as a race, vigorously defend our right to knock the pompous and pretentious from their pedestals, perhaps we can afford a moment of charitable affection for a band who've continually worked to stay at the top. Make no mistake, U2 have grafted. Ever since day one, they've played the gigs and put the effort in.

Aside from craft & guile they have also experimented with different musical forms and techniques. When critics called them predictable they wrote and released an album whilst on the road. They clearly listen to what people say to and about them. Perhaps they should care less, given that - at the end of it all - they'll always have their critics. It's impossible to have their level of success without attracting flak; they should be big enough to shrug it off.

They clearly have the desire (semi-intentional pun) to continue making new music and touring to promote it. In essence it's their day job and probably a vocation, they really don't need to do it anymore. If the album is an unnecessary excuse to tour then we should all welcome it, for in the stadiums of the World this is a band almost without equal. I've seen many, many stadium shows but few can match the ability of U2 on form, in particular on the ZOO TV tour where the Wembley & Roundhay Park shows are amongst the most memorable gigs I've ever seen - only U2 do stadium rock as an art form. Is that such a bad thing?

A new U2 album then, good with great moments, probably not essential but few things are. The only people it's really essential to are those who make money from recorded music, by the end of 2009 it may be obvious just how much they really needed it to do well.

Here every week
Here all week