on the edge of commercialism

What the hell, I'll say it: I can't stand U2.

I realize that it's easy for a lot of people to like U2, they were quite likable back in the day-- and their success wasn't limited to the underground either. Instead, U2 developed in the mainstream. You'd be hard pressed to find a history on the band that's short enough for anyone to bother reading. Even if you do find one it's usually written as more of an homage than an objective story of union. The stories praise the innovation of The Edge's guitar work, the grounded rhythm section of Adam Clayton and Larry Mullen Jr., and the revolutionary frontman known simply as Bono. Much like U2, the writings about them have also lost their spontaneity and zest.

No one can deny U2 the credit that they deserve. I don't want anyone to say that they were "no-talent ass-clowns" from their incarnation in the earliest of the 1980's. What I will say is that 20 years later, they have really gotten a great deal of the life sucked right out of them as a group. Bono's political tirades leave the casual fan bored, and the layers of hypocrisy covering the group makes them against more grains that one can imagine. But that cliché, against the grain, has an opposite ring to it when you consider U2. Their sound has been a safe and unchanging one for years.

No one forgets the mid-90's deviation from the rock roots of the boys from Dublin. Zooropa and Pop were widely viewed as the weakest releases from U2. After the embarrassing records, the band returned to the run-of-the-mill sound that took them so far in the first place. This is where U2 and I had our first quarrel. If the band is moving to a more industrial, amped up, electro-sound, then move there. Don't take the bus halfway to the "Discoteque" and turn around in cowardly apprehension. If you're going to go for something new, you'd better take a card from Madonna's deck, and do it full force.

Madonna often loses credibility for genre shifting since her romp in the 1980's and early 90's. Why should she lose credibility and become the subject of ridicule for years because of songs like "Broken" and "Ray of Light"? No one denies that her eccentricities have led her to becoming a celebrity punchline, but why does it happen to her and not the flattening U2?

Perhaps the most notable difference is U2's abandonment of their pseudo-dance style, while Madonna did what I suggested-- she stuck with it. U2 did what you might consider a smarter move in the music industry-- they found a new sound and adjusted to that. This time, it was the Coldplay sound, and then the poppy-up-tempo. And when we cut through all the red tape, don't you just find it painfully ironic that U2 ends up impersonating the bands that they inspired from the get-go?

Maybe they returned to their roots. Maybe I'm wrong about the hackneyed new style of U2. But if I give you that much, there's still a little bit of emptiness in their latest releases. Perhaps that's because of a general hypocrisy that makes the band an anomaly in today's world.

I think one more difference between Madonna and U2 is that she turned into an oddball and they turned into champions of good in a world gone bad. Through the whole Jubilee years ago, and the proposals of the World Bank, U2 has been at the forefront-- especially Bono. Madonna released a record in 2003 that no one even knows exists. She garnered a real parental advisory label and politicked her musings to no end. U2 stayed squeaky clean and got plenty of benefits from doing so. They became the supporters of the poor and were always close at hand to remind us that we were part of the world's debt problem and that we could do a lot to help, but we wouldn't.

In the meantime, U2 has backed the most commercially whored product in iPods, played the commercial pimp parade in the Super Bowl, and my bet is that Bono's not retiring to a three-bedroom suburban house when the day is done.

U2 is important. They took the world by the back of the head and pushed our noses in our own problems. They changed the face of rock by bringing a refreshing heir of emotion to the game that had been lost among keyboards and hairdos in the 1980's. In the end though, U2 sucks. They've taken a lot of what they figuratively stood for and turned themselves on their own. When a revolutionary succeeds, they always lose the revolution.

It's inherent, if you're going to be a revolutionary, to never be satisfied. There will always be oppression and strife. U2 acknowledges that fact, but musically, they couldn't be anything farther from what they are politically. Pushing for change and innovation in politics and human rights in politics, and musically-- well let's just say The Edge is anything but. And Madonna? She tanked man—we can’t ignore that. But Madonna has also set herself up for one amazing comeback years from now. U2 will be in the rock n' roll hall of fame, and all that jazz-- but in the end, I still have to keep my respect to the real heroes who go out on that limb and stay out there. If the bough breaks, they'll climb up again-- that's what hard work is all about.