Bono Itching To Take U2 To The "Next Level"

that'll be be pretty fuckin' interesting for the other three.

Not that he doesn't have a nice voice.

http://www.hokutonoken.it/cinema/uizzesrock.jpg

ROFFLE

But I think Bono's right. Much as I'd like to be in the cool kids' Edge/Eno camp, I think Bono's singing is by far the band's greatest asset. Assuming that he's not just a drone who takes direction from the rest of the band and/or his producers, I'm surprised that the band's still together at all.

"One," Mary J. Blige feat. U2. Pet Shop Boys, Johnny Cash...this is not the first great U2 cover, and it won't be the last. There's a reason for that: however swell the songs might be (and this is one swell song), Bono can't sing. His vocals are thin and mawkish and have a stident need to be liked, and each of these covers provides a massive benefit, be it Neil Tennant's yearning irony or Johnny Cash's singular gravitas. Mary J broadens out the tones to the Baptist breadth to which they always secretly aspired, and gives them an emotional thickness that, well, Bono doesn't have and she does, in spades. Secondary lesson in all this: The Edge may be more of a genius than we thought.

ROFFLE

But back to Jane...

Bono's "Baptist yearning" is hardly a secret. He's been flaunting his inner gospel/soul/R&B diva for years. Of course, that isn't what he is, and means his voice sometimes does seem poorly suited to the tasks he sets for it. But that tension gives his singing a great deal of its power, too.

We all recognize the mawkishness. It's impossible not to see it. Mawkishness and "a stident need to be liked" are written in giant, flaming caps over the man's entire career. But mawkishness sometimes simply works. And the need to be liked can result in open, inviting, genuinely expressive performance.

Bono sells his band's work. Their songs may have been reinterpeted successfully by others, but not (so far) in ways that speak so strongly to so many. His performances on "One" and "Where the Streets Have No Name" remain definitive, iconic. Maudlin, yes. Obvious and even grating, sure. But profoundly moving and beautiful just the same. The quasi-spiritual yearing he projects with such seemingly idiotic ease is the band's one true ace in the hole (from a performance/arrangement standpoint, anyway).

He's the reason they're not just another well-liked, well-respected mid-level rock band. He's the reason that hipsters will always mock them, and the reason that they'll be remembered for decades to come.

P.S. I don't like U2 very much. I'm just saying...

See, this is how I feel about Neil Tennant singing WTSHNN.

I usually step up to defend the Big B, but anyone who says "take it to the next level" is fair game.

U2 can only be redeemed if their next album contains at least seventeen minutes of metal croaking.

No argument there.

That awful bit about not being a singles band, and having a "very young audience coming through," and wanting to "have something they could check us out very easy on," isn't much easier to defend.

Dildo Turd:

The next album will include at least 11 wedding/prom ballads with vaguely "spiritual" themes. Mark my words.

Though I would gladly come back to the fold for an album of Edge/Eno/(Mullen/Clayton) ambient/prog metal. Like if you took the U2 elements already lurking in, say, ISIS and, I dunno, U2'd 'em up? As much as I enjoy Bono's "gospel voice" I would definitely pay money to hear his COOOOOKIE.

Srsly, this could be like Achtung Baby II.

I know!!! Why don't they try some techno??!!?!!!

Motion seconded, but let the record state that we find the pun execrable.