catapult magazine

I expected this to be covered already with the Bono-lovers on this site, but what does everyone think of the new U2 album, “How to Dismantle and Atomic Bomb?”

Lets get into it. . .

Ed.

i haven’t even heard the album yet, but as a bono-lover, i can’t wait to “get into” this newest offering from my favourite ‘kinda-christian’ rock band!

kinda christian??? hmmm. a stretch i think. sure they deal with spirituality issues and the like, but can we go so far to say they are a kinda christian rock band? thats like saying johnny rotten was kind of a priest. and arent all artists really dealing with spirituality on one level or another?

There are a number of U2 songs where specifically Christian themes are explored. I am thinking of “Until the end of the world”, “God Part II”, “If God will send his angels”, “Wake up Dead Man”, “Peace on Earth”, and “Grace”. Which are just some I can think of at the moment.

It would also be worthwhile to note Bono’s involvement in Jubilee 2000, his involvement in fighting AIDS and famine in Africa, and his appeals to the Christian community to make a difference in the world (that is something I read once in ‘Books and Culture’).

I also read in an interview once that Bono encourages people to read “the Message” a bible paraphrase.

U2’s exploration of specifically Christian themes is why i would use the expression “kinda Christian” to describe them. Although they explore such themes, it is unlikely that you would find their music in your typical Christian book store.

This is different than comparing Johnny Rotten to a priest because comparing Johnny Rotten to a priest is an exaggeration.

i realize that, i was trying to make a point. thanks tho. on the other side of things, the use of “suggestive words” as well as “suggestive drugs” can also counteract your point of calling them kinda Christian for the reasons that you stated. on top of that the term “kinda Christian” sound kind fence-sitter to me.

Ed.

i haven’t heard the new album yet (besides ‘vertigo’ single). what’s your thought, eddie? good, bad, hyped, bland? the comeback continues, or merely portions of old albums re-warmed and re-served?

the music feels comfortably familiar as signature U2. however, i connect more with darker work like Achtung Baby than i do with this most recent release. some of the lyrics seem a bit too simplistic, but perhaps this was a goal and will be considered a strength by some.

thanks for asking laryn — i would be happy to give you my take.
:o

i find the new U2 album to be quite engaging on a lot of levels. the first single is catchy. but beyond that there is a whole bunch of things that are old u2 and newish u2. by old i mean, you could play the alnum right after their first album, Boy, and be pretty suprised at how the 23 odd years have taken them full circle. there is alot of old feel on the album. a nice raw guitar sound on a handful of songs. but underneath some of the layers you can also hear a lot of circa Joshua Tree and Rattle and Hum sounds, simplistic guitar playing but with complex sounds. I alreay enjoy this album MUCH more that the last one. I hope it doesnt take 4 years for the next. I do agree with Kristen in some areas — the lyrics are simple at times, but i think that is what they went for as well. there are some great lines — “I like the sound of my own voice . . .” which from Bono couldnt be more true. The funny thing is, he realizes it. There is songs of love, politics, peace and even a lovely balladesque song apparently written to his late father which doesnt really have a chorus to speak of — which is a nice change. it couldnt be further from the single, which i also really enjoy. all in all, i think it is a great album, their best, no, but a good one nonetheless. so in conclusion i wouldnt call this old albums re-warmed and re-served, but rather a good throwback to the days of old, served with a sense of experience and musicaly maturity. I find the Edge gets better with age.

and thats the best part.

Ed.

U2 need a good kick in the ass.

Actually I really love a lot of the new U2 album. Its great to hear a band still making legit records in there 40’s. The choruses in this album are especially great. Sometimes the verses seem like filler.

The Edge is doing some great guitar work on this album. My favourite is the solo at the end of “Love and Peace”. He was really feeling that one when he performed it.
There are some guitar parts I really don’t like though. Some of the hooks seem so whiney, sentimental and formulaic. I noticed some of this on the last album and I hope it doesn’t get any worse.

I like what U2 is doing with their music. Its very constructive. Rock and roll needs some more destruction though. No one is doing good destructive rock and roll. The mainstream stuff is all party retro-rock, emo ’i’m such a sinner’ music, or cock metal. Rock music needs to destroy again so something new can be built.

Now here’s an interesting point. I’ve thought about this myself.

Historically, Rock’n Roll was defined by its counter-cultural attitude. It was predominantly created by black rhythm&blues musicians (along with a healthy dose of country music), and it was certainly counter to the establishment church, more specifically, the mainstream church’s/culture’s repressive attitudes towards sex and race (not to mention self-expression) in the fifties. We produced a show at Theatre & Company a couple of years ago called “Fire” about the relationship between Jerry Lee Lewis and his cousin Jimmy Swaggart. To a large extent, Rock’n Roll and Evangelical Christianity were the opposite poles of the early American rock culture, and the tension between them, even in the performer’s own heart and mind, was the source of a lot of the creative energy of the early innovators.

But there has always been a strong relationship between Gospel music and Rock, in that they both share strong roots in the incredibly rich American folk tradition which has also given birth to Country, Jazz, Blues, and Soul. I think you could argue that the enormous success of “The Joshua Tree” and “Rattle & Hum” was at least partly due to U2’s discovery and recognition of these shared roots, and their ability, coming from their Irish post-punk roots, to give the gospel-rock genre the freshest expression it’s had since Ray Charles.

I agree with Kirstin that something’s been missing in U2’s music for me since Achtung Baby. “Darkness” is a good way to put it. At the risk of a horrible pun, I’ll say that I miss the edge their music used to have. I have enjoyed the albums since “Achtung Baby” (although I haven’t heard the new one yet), but nothing has had the existential impact on me of “Sunday Bloody Sunday”; “40”; “October”; “Bad”; “With or Without You”; “Running to Stand Still”; or even “One” (I could list many more).

Their music has always been radio-friendly, which explains their huge success. And I don’t begrudge them that. I don’t believe at all that great art can only be accessible to an enlightened few. I do believe, however that great art is made out of a dialogue with doubt, which is something that the bulk of musicians in the Christian Contemporary Music industry may never understand. I simply don’t get this urge many evangelicals seem to have to ONLY ever hear music that affirms the assumptions and prejudices of their theology. Do they honestly not have a shred of doubt in their lives? Or do they really think they can just drown it out under a tidal wave of praise music? Praise music is a good thing, but I don’t consider much of it (that I’ve heard) great music. T.S. Eliot said something to the effect that most religious poetry suffers from people writing about how they think they should feel, as opposed to how they actually do feel. I think the Christians making the best music understand this dynamic, and are able to honestly espress the reality of living in a fallen world within the context of a faith which is still able to acknowledge the existence of mystery.

It could be that I’m simply older, and less impressionable (although I hope that’s not the case). I think that may be true of U2 themselves. A band can only sustain a certain level of achievement for so long before it plateaus. The Beatles broke up before they had a chance to prove me wrong. The Stones have been coasting for decades. U2 has been together longer with the same lineup than just about any other band out there. They may no longer be making great music, but they will very likely continue to make good music for as long as they choose to continue recording.

Which brings me to Joel’s point. A theatre director I used to work with described one of the tasks of art as destroying “the false order of unhelpful assumptions” so that, as Joel says, something new can be created. Given the safe, commercial, mainstream nature of so much of contemporary rock, and assuming that one is bored of recycled Sex Pistols riffs and faux-British accents, and given the fact that Rage Against the Machine has broken up and the Ramones are dying off, where CAN one go for a little healthy destruction?

I am not up on the contemporary music scene very much. I just don’t have the money to invest in a lot of CDs or the time to be up late every night downloading a lot of new music. But when I need a dose of darkness, tempered by compassion and a very healthy sense of humour, I turn to Tom Waits. Waits is WAY too edgy and bizarre for a lot of people (post-SwordfishTrombone), especially evangelical Christians, and he certainly doesn’t have a honey-coated voice, but I find him the most consistently fascinating songwriter/performer out there. He’s like a combination of the Wizard of Oz, Lewis Carroll, and a kinder, gentler Charles Bukowski. He deals with spiritual issues in unconventional ways, asks some hard questions, pokes fun that some will find offensive (in my opinion, he tends to satirize blind religious observance as opposed to genuine belief). He is frequently out and out bizarre in his arrangement of metaphors and his choice of instrumentation, but he also has many incredibly beautiful and heartfelt ballads, both in his early jazz-influenced work, and his “mature” uncategorizable work. Mostly I appreciate the unflinching honesty of much of his music, and a deep sense of concern about the human condition that neither excludes anyone (prostitutes and street thugs) nor elevates anyone (including himself). Of his later work I would particularly recommend Rain Dogs, Bone Machine and Mule Variations (probably my favourite). Closing Time is a good introduction to his early work, as is The Early Years vol. I and II. Beautiful Maladies is a good overview of the later work.

This may be a topic for a new thread, but are there any other Tom Waits fans lurking about here? I’m also a big Uncle Tupelo/Wilco/Jeff Tweedy fan, but we’re not talking about roots-rock are we? Sorry for the long post – I’m prone to rambling over my morning coffee.

If U2 is only “kind of” a Christian band, then there is no such thing as Christian Rock music. U2 absolutely makes Christian music. No doubt about it.

Henry’s on the right track when he recognizes that the Christianity in rock music is in its gospel roots. One could say that the Christian spirit still lurks in ALL rock’n’roll, even the shitty stuff, at least in terms of its heritage and foundations. The Rolling Stones took their particular jubilation (“You’ve Gotta Move”) from the gospel music they grew up on, but they used that feeling to express their own fantasies of sexual license and anti-establishment. U2 is clearly reclaiming rock’n’roll for the Spirit that moves in mysterious ways. U2’s music brings rock’n’roll back to its rightful owner. The Spirit of true joy and freedom is perhaps best communicated in great rock’n’roll these days. And since David’s Psalms are no longer sung with their original fervor, rock’n’roll is the best we have right now for this particular feeling of victory, joy and freedom.