Hey Exile...I understand your feelings on the TJT tour....kind of a legacy act thing to do. Can you expand on the collaboration issue? Just by nature of time, U2's longevity in the music industry, and their age, almost any collaboration they do is going to be with a group that is younger then them...is it that they should stick with their cohort, or just not do collaborations at all?
It has nothing to do with age, and everything to do with the (seeming) motivations behind it. Now I enjoy a bit of hip hop and rap, but it's rare, so I don't really know where KL stands in the broader spectrum of that genre. If he is seen as an artistic and cutting-edge MC, then I have more respect for a U2 collab than I would if he is the hip hop equivalent of, say, Selena Gomez.
Likewise, if a U2 collab involves U2 being U2 in that song, I have less of a problem with it than if U2 is trying to be something they're not (whether it's Bono trying to be a rapper or U2 making bubblegum EDM stuff).
But my broader complaint has nothing to do with KL. It's more about U2 allowing commercial factors to drive their art. And I can't imagine any thinking U2 fan insisting that U2 hasn't been doing just this for a good while now.
They've been doing that since day dot though Exile. How could you see the transformation from R&H to AB as having no commercial motive? As long as the end product is worthwhile, surely that's the only thing that even matters.
There's a small few artists out there for whom commercial interests don't factor into their artistic choices but they're extremely rare. And U2 have never been this at any time in their existence (I mean you don't become, and stay, the biggest band in the world for so long with this mentality).
Doing what? Allowing commercial concerns to drive their art? I disagree. You brought up AB as your example. While the band surely welcomed the commercial success of that album, it was born in a crucible of fractured relationships and fragile loyalties, and as such it comes off as completely authentic.
Whereas Bono insisting that if he doesn't go crazy tonight he will go crazy, well, just doesn't.
There's an early interview of Bono speaking about how he perceives U2 as a business too. The question is: what exactly does that mean?
For me, most of their best decisions were made trying to reach more relevance (the thing we want them to avoid now). So, as documented in "U2 by U2", the band searching for Eno after War was because the knew they'd be pigeonholed (and then fade away) if they made another album in the same vein. After that, one could argue that The Joshua Tree was the result of U2 trying to touch a broader audience with their homage to more traditional music (even if Bono was really inspired by that). And Achtung Baby is clearly a consequence of R&H, getting hippier and more european after the "cowboy" fiasco.
The differences between now and the golden days are three, in my opinion: (1) dedication, (2) inspiration and (3) what they perceive as being relevant at the moment. Back in the day, calling Eno to make an experimental album (TUF) sounded like a great idea to bring them critical acclaim and more recognition to their brand (like a better and more complete curriculum). A smart move. Nowadays, for some reason, maybe because they were so gigantic before (something that throws a big shadow), or because they got scared after POP and NLOTH, U2 don't think anymore that they have the opportunity to rink being experimental in order to get relevant and successful. So going safe is the only route that they can see... (although I think they don't understand contemporary music and trends, and that's why they fail so hard [unless Kendrick Lamar is in the command]).
Also, there's a fourth reason too, me thinks. As we all know, U2 is a live band, so they crave for an enthusiastic response from the crowd in a show. Because of that, they release music that they imagine the whole crowd will be singing along to. They are terrifyed of a quiet crowd. Then, between Cedars of Lebanon and Get On Your Boots, which one is answer? Yes, the latter.
