Worth a Look, A Listen, Both, or Neither

I swung by another blog and happened across a list of the worst 11 songs for the year 2004, and the results are interesting... First, the link: http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=11worst...

If you've read his post at the above link and made it back here, you are now aware that the author of the above-linked blog listed the 11 tunes on U2's latest release, "How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb." And while it's actually kinda entertaining reading his anti-U2 rant, it's actually sort of interesting, in a sociological, pathological kinda way. Note I didn't include scatalogical, phantasmagorical or cyclical.

Essentially, more than half of the guy's anti-U2 rant centers on non-musical visuals and the aura U2 has espoused in (or been anointed by) the media.

Personally, I've moved past the U2 aesthetic which, essentially, portrays Bono as a latter-day Jesus and The Edge as a really talented guitarist. Neither is true. Bono just speaks his mind and thinks that anywhere in the world where a child or a dissident is, respectively, neglected or abused, he needs to speak up. Personally, I respect people who have opinions that are expressed (along with action) in the attempt to help people. U2's last album featured a song called "Walk On" that was dedicated to Aung San Suu Kyi, the Burmese dissident who, despite being properly elected as leader of that nation, has been under house arrest since 1989. Singers and actors and celebrities in general, I feel, should do their jobs and keep their opinions to a dull roar. Do I personally care what Boy George thinks about the giant coins of the Yap Islanders? Not particularly. But hot damn, if Boy George managed to create a keeper of a tune (yeah, I know, not gonna happen) then so be it.

Then the other part of me believes that opinions are like assholes: everyone's got one.

My main thing about U2, whether or not you care, is that their music, for me, is entertaining and worthwhile. I'm not a fan of the ridiculous aura that surrounds them -- no band will ever out-cool the Stones in the 70's and Led Zeppelin in the late 60's, and Bono's eyewear usually makes me nauseous. But what he's wearing on his face is irrelevant if the music is good and the musician (or the group) has integrity. Their iPod campaign isn't a sell-out -- not in my opinion -- and for the most part, I respect them as a group, even if Bono wears stupid eyewear, The Edge looks like a guy who just pulled a robbery of a bodega in Washington Heights and the other two guys (like anyone really cares what their names are) are just sort of bouncing around as a backing duo. So the bottom line is if the music is worth listening to, I listen to it. I have plenty of stuff in my collection that isn't "mainstream" stuff you'd hear on any radio, and I avoid watching videos and MTV (see http://houseofboogie.blogspot.com/2004/12/music-for-rentsort-of.html if you need clarification). In essence, music should stand on its own, and should be judged on its own. If your listening tastes are affected by what kind of glasses a guy is wearing or his t-shirt or what he looks like, then you're just as guilty of lining up (for or against) as some nimrod in Wisconsin who thinks Britney Spears is the ideal woman and Madonna is her mother.

Then again, the Rolling Stone article portraying Bono as Jesus really did irritate me.

Guess I won't listen to "How To Dismantle An Atomic Bomb." Let's see...what can I listen to? Oh, The Police, "Ghost in the Machine"...naw, Sting looks stupid with his hair that way...hmmm...

Worth a look...and a grain of salt:
http://maddox.xmission.com/