America is sitting at a bar -- I like to think of American as a sexy lady – and who comes traipsing up to start a conversation but U2 and its wingman Apple.
Everything is great; America is entranced by U2’s rugged Irish accents – we’re kind of a sucker for that as a country. Then when America’s back is turned, Apple slips U2s new album, “Songs of Innocence” into all of our iTunes, well for 500 million of us.
We felt violated. There are numerous webpages dedicated to deleting the album, including an Apple support page. A month later, I guess U2 understands since Bono is out there issuing official apologies.
I’m guessing Bono, Edge and Co. were not expecting this reaction to giving away their hard(ish) work for free. U2 does not have the best rep for self-awareness. When assessing a potential reason for this public relations blunder, it’s important to consider where U2 is coming from.
U2 has been making money on music since “War” in 1983, this was back when Bono was rocking big fluffy 80s hair. After “Joshua Tree” was released in 1987 they had reached a mythical status. They are at the point where they can charge $250 per show and people will see them live for forever. But nobody’s really content with that unless you’re the Rolling Stones’ age. Many bands have committed great follies to stay culturally relevant.
U2 was the biggest band in the world (arguably) just six years ago. They believe it is their right to make money. So instead of just releasing the album on their website, they take the risk out of the gesture and partner with Apple who paid them and their record label $100 million.
Contrast this with another aging foreign band, Radiohead. The two bands are relatively similar – artisans of critically acclaimed music but also popular enough to be fiscally tenable. But Radiohead emerged in the early ‘90s before making a similarly legendary ascent with OK Computer. Radiohead was born into an alternative scene that was reluctant to shill for the man. It was a privilege for them to make money.
Back in 2007, Radiohead released “In Rainbows” on their website. It’s a technique lead singer Thom Yorke recently repeated for his solo album. They told fans to pay what they wanted.
Besides the album-delivery method, another difference between Radiohead and U2 is that In Rainbows happens to be one of the former band’s best albums, successfully marrying the (at the time) revolutionary electronic sounds of “Kid A” with what everybody loved about “OK Computer.” Giving an album of that caliber away endeared Radiohead to their fans in a lasting way.
“Songs of Innocence” on the other hand is mediocre at best. I like “California.” It has many elements that U2 does well – a progressive buildup, combination of guitar, piano and synths and a nice breakdown with subsequent guitar solo. In general, I feel like Bono’s unbridled bluster is a song ruiner at this point, especially on anything meant to be softer, and his singing rhythms are all over the place. I’m sure he thought it was creative but it makes some songs sound like a jumbled mess.
What U2 didn’t realize is that their music has been force fed to the populous for years just through a different corporate partner – mainstream radio. I automatically reach for the dial when I hear “Vertigo” because that particularly infectious tune was played into the ground.
Blasting us with an unrelenting stream of marketing is one thing, just going ahead and putting the album in our iTunes, like they're God’s gift to eardrums, went too far.