bowie&barrett

I haven't heard it yet, but I already know that this album is going to make me veeeeeery happy...

Hi there, maybe it hasn’t been clear, but I think exactly like you; in fact, you've written what I had already said! That is: from the latest album, which I consider rubbish, I can only save "Shipwreked" by the talented Ray Wilson (truly, it’s really beautiful in the acoustic version he always performs at his concerts). I was just reflecting more subtly on the reason why the album failed. In my opinion, it’s the burden of that label! If they had abandoned the Genesis brand back in '75, perhaps they would have had more creative freedom over time, and even in this last phase, they might have created music that was more decent than this kind of stale romantic rock. Two musicians with the experience of Banks and Rutherford, along with an exceptional vocalist and talented songwriter like Ray Wilson could have really created something interesting. But the beautiful music was mortgaged by trying to "recreate" something that was already in the past and was just fine where it was: in the past. And so everything imploded. It’s not a matter of having preconceived notions or pretending to have listened. I’ve listened, and what I see is indeed a "new project" that is already "old" before it even started. What do you think? What do you all think?

I’ve already written this while commenting on We Can't Dance, but I’m happy to repeat it here since the discussion is lively: this way, I can read what you think. The mistake they made was not in the genre change itself, but in not changing the “brand” when they decided to change genres. Keeping the name for evidently commercial reasons, not wanting to lose the audience, not wanting to take a risk, was the true crime. The musical shift wasn’t the issue; if you think about it, it’s always the structural differences in the compositions that left the old fans bewildered, not their quality (how many times have we thought: “…and yet I like it, but it's nice, come on…”). By retaining the name "Genesis," Collins & co. made the new compositions vulnerable to comparison with the progressive era, as these were seen not so much as the building blocks of a new project, but as an evolution (or involution) of the previous project. If you think about it, no one compares Genesis tracks with Gabriel's solo work with the same anger. Collins & co. didn't err in playing different music, but in doing so under the reassuring and historical brand, ultimately tarnishing it.

In fact, I hoped for a rebirth of Genesis, convincing myself that it was possible. I had appreciated Ray Wilson for some time (and thanked God that Stiltskin had disbanded, wishing for that talented performer a much brighter solo career), and I had indeed noticed a vague resemblance between his voice and Gabriel's. Perhaps that’s why I liked it. But just like chili and salt, it’s hard for them to create a sweet substance when combined; it was just as impossible to resurrect the old Genesis. Good intentions supported by a no longer fresh talent were not enough, nor a good voice lacking the showmanship of the old "slipping fox." It was a dreadful record, flawed in every note: where there should have been creation, there was a (failed) attempt at recovery. While sounding pop, the Genesis up to that point (Collins or not) had not ceased to look forward. Now, they had stopped, and attempted to recreate something that had long flown away in the winds of time.

I don't know if it was clear: I was criticizing the review, but I love the album instead :-)

I’m done! ;-)

Pop is nothing more than the most sincere album by U2, the one in which the band seems to finally admit that they are nothing but a sideshow, a lucky, wild offshoot of the 80s that survived the "decennio orribilis." In Pop, U2 reinvent themselves, but only to the extent that they marry their new wave roots with electronic sounds. And even then, they arrive 10 years after the Cure (who, indeed, had inspired, to some extent, the electrosound typical of artists like Massive Attack and Björk), but they must be credited for doing it with remarkable class. And no small amount of courage. The real challenge to face wasn't those who have been listening to music for decades like yours truly, or those with good ears like Bleak: the challenge was precisely the long-standing fans, those who perhaps least understood the true sonic potential of the band. Those who had the audacity to condemn a beautiful album like Zooropa, simply because - being failed "paninari" - they never deemed albums like David Bowie's "Low" or at least those of "similar" (I say this ironically) bands like Joy Division or Sisters of Mercy worthy of even a glance. Today, those failed "paninari" complain about the latest albums, but deep down, they have the band they deserve. Because they failed to support it during the only truly creative phase of its career.

Bleak's conclusions on this album don't surprise me: in fact, I find the conclusions of those who denigrate U2's recent works much more absurd. The underlying discourse is a completed comparison between the "unfortunate" recent albums and the "supposed masterpieces" of the past. But those masterpieces never really existed: it is therefore obvious that someone with a bit of ear like Bleak wouldn't find substantial differences between the quality of Pop and that of Achtung Baby. He's not hard of hearing; rather, he hears perfectly well!!

Let's overlook the pseudo-political pretensions of U2: these have always brushed against the ridiculous, just like Sting's mental gymnastics about the Amazon, which were good for the television audience that got emotional watching "In Search of the Ark." A show as faux-pseudo-intellectual as Sting and U2 were faux-pseudo-rock. The fact is that U2 has always managed to produce "decent" music, releasing well-constructed and balanced albums. No album was a masterpiece, no song deserved to be remembered except by fans.

Oh finally a forum where we talk about music, instead of defending or worse, kissing the ass of U2! Finally... this is how I see it: U2 are a group of 4 honest tradesmen who have been fortunate enough to meet great producers along their way. They’ve made mostly decent but anonymous music, and they’ve been smart enough to create some memorable hits, especially when compared to much of what was in the charts during '84 - '88. They were little songs that represented the domesticated version of the sound insights belonging to other products of the new wave, which, however, appeared much more challenging and definitely less appetizing for the ramping taste buds. The stroke of genius, not so much sonic as marketing, was to create a "bridge" between the frenzied rhythm of Duran Duran's electro-pop, the dirty and basic guitars of punk, and the suggestions of the sound fabric of new wave. They were the ideal group for anyone wanting to show off in the eighties, proving they listened to rock (while being careful not to mess up their hair). It was cool to have a David Sylvian LP like "Secrets of the Beehive" in the living room, but it was more reassuring to listen to Bono and the gang's antics with the girl.