Selling out

Artwork by Gus Design courtesy of Design Crowd

When I write, I usually tend to put on something soothing, maybe some Ludovico Einaudi or an instrumental soundtrack to think better. This time though, I'm going for U2. I could be listening to One or Where the Streets have no Name; they're wholesome, they're U2 classics. But for this particular post, I'm blasting some brassier, unmelodious U2 stuff. This album is one misunderstood work of art. 

Some of you haven't even heard of POP, but if you're U2 die-hard fans, and I'm sure there are a few still around, then there's a good probability you dislike this record. The release of POP had been rushed. The band simply ran out of time in the making of it, so since it had already been pushed it back several times, the band went on to publish an unpolished version of POP.

Not only was this album unfinished, but the record's rawness didn't quite soothe the fan's refined palate. So they dismissed it as U2 going all techno. The band was a sellout. They couldn't have been more wrong.

This album can be deceiving because many will struggle to find meaning beneath the cacophony of Mofo or the triviality of Discotheque. The tracks in POP are layered differently, but they all ultimately expose the listener to the state of bewilderment we're often faced with, call it faith, call it relationships or call it our own identity. POP might sound rough and incomplete, yet, in many ways, the record's imperfections reflect our own. 

But I'm not here to defend POP. I'm just nostalgic for the U2 that once was. In the 90's this band was at the peak of its fame, yet Bono and Co still pushed their creative confines. It was exactly that kind of mindset that led to the inception of Achtung Baby. POP might not be up there, but it's a unique and highly creative work of art from that same period.

After the release of POP, U2 decided to go back to basics. The idea behind the album that followed POP- All that you can't leave behind- made sense at the time, but it all went awry after that. The last two studio albums have been pathetic versions of the ballsy band U2 once was.

The Guardian's Kitty Empire epitomized it best on her review for their most recent work, Songs of Innocence: U2 is trying to sound "like Coldplay sounding like U2." U2 hasn't been the only band to meet this fate; the list of musicians, ranging from REM to Dave Matthews, is endless. So what is it? Do these artists just grow old? Do they simply run out of ideas? I doubt it. How would you then explain those artists like Beck, who've been around for decades, and whose music is still eclectic and relevant? 

Like Beck, U2 was taking those great leaps in the name of art. Like Beck, they were experimenting and willing to seek new journeys. In fact with POP, the band was not selling out, far from it. If anything, the band started to sell out the very moment it tried to sound like the old U2. The irony. 

And as I internalize all this, there's a question that keeps pestering me. Who am  I? Beck or U2?