Red Mosquito

durdencommatyler wrote:Sure. But the stalled innovation must surely be part of that narrative.

Is this post about Apple or U2?

Ok, after a few more listens;

- good album...has the good elements of No Line, and shares some new ground with Danger Mouse´s producing. The first track is really strong, and it doesnt have any of those lazy songs like "Boots" in No Line.

- Sleep like a baby tonight is my favorite...sounds like Jack White is playing there,.,Bono sounds great, that weird intro..great song.

- Yeah i love the troubles. Its that that good..

- The Edge. What a monster.

where's the single???


I can think of one possible but they wont be that obvious at this point...

or would they?

I thought the single was "The Miracle (of Joey from Friends)"

theplatypus wrote:I thought the single was "The Miracle (of Joey from Friends)"

So, neither the catchiest nor the best song on the record?

Figures.

stip wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:"U2 are the money lenders in the temple," sez John Doran for The Quietus. An article well worth reading.

http://thequietus.com/articles/16217-bo ... experience

I have a longish response I want to make to this piece but I may not have time to write until tomorrow. So be patient and in the meantime I want everyone to do the readings and be prepared to discuss. I know Pryto and I are going to disagree. (His blog post he linked was a good read btw).

I'm not sure we will. I've heard that argument about U2 before and while I'm not super in favor of their tactics, they're hardly unique. The writer is holding Bono to a standard that, I don't know, Beyonce isn't being held to. Rich people don't pay taxes. Is this news? Exile on Main Street could have been called Tax Exile on Main Street since that's exactly what it was. Not saying that's right, but Bono is hardly the only rich guy pulling these sorts of shenanigans.

broken iris wrote:

durdencommatyler wrote:Sure. But the stalled innovation must surely be part of that narrative.

Is this post about Apple or U2?

Been through this about 6 times now. And, with the exception of California, this is a pretty good album. I like some of the nods to their earlier stuff.

Early random observations:
The Troubles is my early favorite. Really like everything about this song.

Sleep Like a Baby Tonight sounds like a Zooropa track to my ears. Good stuff.

Iris is probably the letdown of the album. Its like the Loveboat Captain of the album. Overall a decent song, starts off really promising, feels like a centerpiece track, but really doesn't all add up to its lofty aspirations. Bono's the weak link of this one.

There's enough here to give me hope for the follow up.

that song Digital booklet wont play for me..

bet it's the best one on the album...

dimejinky99 wrote:"U2 are the money lenders in the temple," sez John Doran for The Quietus. An article well worth reading.

http://thequietus.com/articles/16217-bo ... experience

Okay, I've been thinking about this on and off today since it touches on a political/philosophical peeve of mine. I apologize for the long post, and that it's not about the music. But it's hard to get to U2's music without first having to grapple with Bono.


My issue is with the author's larger argument that the album itself is somehow inauthentic because of U2’s politics and associations. There’s the implication that the idea of innocence, purity, hope, optimism, etc. is only possible insofar as one withdraws from the world. I think the author misses the fact that to choose innocence, redemption, etc. as a subject matter probably requires you to be fallen in the first place. That because U2 deals with Apple, which utilizes oppressed and exploited labor to make their ipods, hangs out with George Bush, etc. they’re somehow no longer entitled to be interested in or desire to work through and experience innocence, or sing about a better world (although apparently it’s okay to buy apple products, as the author does. You just can’t sponsor them).


There’s also the question of guilt and complicity. The accusation (which was a nice piece of writing), that ‘For all their protestations, the band are the money lenders in the temple, NOT Christ, turning over their tables’ misses the mark in two ways. There seems to be at least a partial assumption that Bono IS as all powerful as Bono seems to think he is. That U2 could have singled handedly moved the production of ipads back to the United States, creating a hundred thousand well paid union jobs, if only he hadn’t signed his soul away to Apple. If Bono doesn’t associate with powerful and influential people that somehow they would lose any and all legitimacy. This is nonsense. Or, if true, we need to start treating Bono with a lot more respect. I suppose you can make the case that by associating with them Bono transfers what street cred he may be bringing (which is not, I think, the same thing as legitimacy) to these people. But Bono hanging out with George Bush because he’s trying to raise money for AIDS support in Africa is hardly going to change people’s impression of Bush.

What it WILL do is raise a lot of money. I am reminded of people who bitched about the ice bucket challenge because it became trendy and that’s the only reason why people did it. As if the millions and millions of dollars raised somehow will do less good because the money lacks some kind of authenticity. If Bono and U2 (or any celebrity) can do a lot of good for a lot of people by working with people in positions of power, it seems to me to be the height of ethical irresponsibility to not do so in the name of some sort of rock star authenticity or concern about cool being commodified in a world where everything is..
That’s not politics. That’s moralizing, and not particularly moral moralizing at that.

Yes, Bank of America is a terrible company. But that Super Bowl spot U2 did with them raised a few million dollars for Malaria relief. Should we tell the people who got that help that it’s more important that they remain sick so that Bank of America doesn’t sully the good name of rock and roll? Because I am pretty confident that had U2 not done that spot Bank of America would have been just fine.

If U2, by disassociating with these things as an act of resistance, could challenge their power and usher in a more just set of institutional options that would be one thing. The coolest thing Pearl Jam ever did was boycotting ticket master, precisely because it had the potential to actually cause some pain to an institution arguably worth challenging. but in the end I don’t’ fault them for going back either, because they were ineffective. Yes, they betrayed a ‘principle’ but they didn’t harm anyone unless diminishing the cultural cache you got from wearing a pearl jam shirt in 1998 counts as harm. And they made life a lot easier for their fans and themselves.

Had Pearl Jam instead worked on creating a movement, an organization, attempted to get the other major bands of that time to boycott ticket master that would have moved beyond concerns about authenticity and into the political, because they were engaged in action that could have been transformative. If, mid massive boycott they decided to go back to Ticketmaster to make a buck I think people would be right to feel betrayed, and not just at a superficial level.

The idea, as the author of this article asserts, that because they’re rich somehow U2 or Bono can’t be sympathetic or even experience a certain degree of solidarity with those who are struggling is nonsense. No less a socialist than Marx argued that the vanguard of socialism will come from the elite.
 
“But what is the 'us' that he's singing about? There is no 'us' when it comes to you and me and the rest of the plebs and Bono. Like anyone reading this who makes some or all of their money by freelance work, a few months ago I completed my taxes. Even though the figure I owed was hardly astronomical, I still felt sick to the pit of my stomach when thinking about how I would cover this debt and make my mortgage payments for the following few months. And now that it's paid, I have to start saving up for next year's bill.”

FDR was part of the New York aristocracy and did more for working people than any other president in US history. And it’s not like he needed to get rid of his wealth in order to do it. And the people whose lives became materially better because of what he was able to do for them did not begrudge him his success. It is not Bono’s fault that any of us are struggling economically, and while it might rankle a bit to see him hobnob with Jeffery Sachs and a shitty neo-liberal economic philosophy, the lack of association is not going to change that. And the association might enable him to do a lot of good.

Cory Booker, when he was mayor of Newark, disappointed a lot of progressives by working closely with Wal-Street to raise money for schools in Newark and other worthwhile projects. And it’s true that he is going hat in hand to the people who are the beneficiaries (and in some cases the cause) of Newark’s problems. But unless Cory Booker had the power to overthrow that order (he didn’t) all the lack of association does is deprive Newark of needed funds. And maybe you can argue that he should have tried to build that new order, but what happens to the children of Newark in the meantime. They still need school. And what if he wasn’t successful. What happens then?

“How has it come to this. A rock star supporting the cause of neo-liberalism? Instead of trying to raise money for AIDS charities shouldn't Bono simply attack the neo-cons such as Donald Rumsfeld who patent AIDS medicine and aggressively prevent cheaper versions being made available in the very place where they are needed the most: Africa?”

He could go after Rumsfeld, but again, unless Bono IS as all mighty as he thinks he is, the end result would be Bono having a lot more street cred, and potentially a lot less money available for African aids charity.

Challenging an unjust social order is important, and someone has to do it. The system needs to be condemned. It is not worth saving. But that’s a generational project. In the meantime others need to be working within that system, warts and all, to make life better for those who most need help while we wait for the millennium. I get annoyed seeing the people who are doing good right now getting attacked in the name of all the theoretical good they could be doing in this imaginary utopia where the only thing propping up finance capital is the continued support of Bono. Annoying as he may be, he is one of the heroes of this story. It’s just that there are a lot of battles that need to be fought at the same time, and I’m not going to condemn someone for not being able to simultaneously fight them all. I'm not going to dismiss their music because of it, either.

PryTo wrote:

stip wrote:

dimejinky99 wrote:"U2 are the money lenders in the temple," sez John Doran for The Quietus. An article well worth reading.

http://thequietus.com/articles/16217-bo ... experience

I have a longish response I want to make to this piece but I may not have time to write until tomorrow. So be patient and in the meantime I want everyone to do the readings and be prepared to discuss. I know Pryto and I are going to disagree. (His blog post he linked was a good read btw).

I'm not sure we will. I've heard that argument about U2 before and while I'm not super in favor of their tactics, they're hardly unique. The writer is holding Bono to a standard that, I don't know, Beyonce isn't being held to. Rich people don't pay taxes. Is this news? Exile on Main Street could have been called Tax Exile on Main Street since that's exactly what it was. Not saying that's right, but Bono is hardly the only rich guy pulling these sorts of shenanigans.

Well okay then. I had thought you'd be pretty sympathetic to it.

also, I apologize if that was rambly. I had to knock that out pretty quick.

And what about their tax dodging in Ireland, Stip?

to my mind, the guy just doesnt like them, but he makes some points in fairness

think you covered every other point

well you can't expect a global citizen of the world to pay taxes to one country Dime, come on?


If that's the whole story it's lame, but I don't think it invalidates their music.

stip,
i know a guy pays tax in every country he plays in and is proud of it, especially his home country, which he never plays in..or sells any records in by comparison to other countries...

PS, had pearl jam had the benefit of the reach of the internet, at the time of the ticketmaster debacle, we'd all be in cheaper seats these days..

hah. that's what they actually said.

U2 manager Paul McGuinness has previously defended the band's decision to move its publishing arm from Ireland to the Netherlands, insisting the band is a global business and pays taxes globally. - See more at: http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/bu ... cCXzr.dpuf

stip wrote:well you can't expect a global citizen of the world to pay taxes to one country Dime, come on?


If that's the whole story it's lame, but I don't think it invalidates their music.

also, the tax evasion HAS become the story here in ireland and the main thrust of the hammering they receive(they meaning Bono particularly) whenever they appear in the press or do anything at all...

I'm not defending it dime. tax evasion is a moral crime, imo. I just wonder if the issue is Bono hiding taxes, or paying them elsewhere as opposed to Ireland.

Its every Americans moral duty to avoid paying taxes, Stippleman.

That was pretty sexy, stip