David Way ([email protected])
Fri, 04 Dec 1998 21:05:00 PST
This was supposed to appear yesterday, but since Hotmail sent my 2nd
message twice, my 3-post-a-day allotment was used up. So, here it is;
pretend it's yesterday.
I have been very highly amused by this whole drug thread. However,
one good thing that may come out of it is that people will really
examine why they like the groups that they like. In the end, the
clashing of the two sides may result in some kind of golden mean, a
process known as "dialectic".
In my opinion, the music and lyrics should always be the primary
reasons for liking a band; their private lives should be just that -
private and, almost necessarily, secondary. I mean, if the overriding
reason a particular person likes U2 is for their cleanliness in respect
to drugs, then that person must have a VERY small music collection
indeed. If that specific criterion is integral in forming fondness for a
particular act, then, by compulsion, that person would have to dislike
the following:
The Beatles, The Rolling Stones, Jimi Hendrix, Led Zeppelin, Bob Dylan,
James Brown, David Bowie, Elvis Presley, The Who, The Beach Boys, Eric
Clapton, John Lennon (solo), Elton John, The Doors, Fleetwood Mac, The
Eagles, Bob Marley, and Sly & the Family Stone.
I complied this list specifically from all the acts that finished above
U2 (#29) in VH1's 100 Greatest Artists of Rock and Roll. Of the 28 that
finished above U2, only Bruce Springsteen, Chuck Berry, Van Morrison,
Aretha Franklin, Pink Floyd, Prince, Marvin Gaye, Ray Charles, Stevie
Wonder, and The Police have been relatively (not absolutely)
substance-free; although if I were to include alcohol, I don't think
there would be ANYONE left! Some of these artists I just listed may have
had dependencies I'm unaware of (please correct me privately if I am
mistaken with any of these), but, if so, that would further confirm my
thesis, i.e., that drug use in private does not make an artist a bad
artist automatically.
Would I think U2 were hypocritical for singing about the evils of
drug use and then privately indulging themselves? Absolutely, but I'd
get over that feeling in about 30 seconds. As long as they make great
music with great lyrics, I'm their fan. Making rock stars your moral
heroes is like building a castle in a swamp and expecting it to stand
forever: it might, but most probably won't.
Let me reiterate so that there is no misunderstanding: I DO in fact
believe the myth/fact (choose one) that U2 are relatively and/or
absolutely substance-free; however, if it were objectively proven to be
otherwise, I'd still like them. Implying that I am "not a real U2 fan"
(or similar comments) because I allow for the possibility (correct or
incorrect) that they may have experimented with drugs beyond nicotine
and alcohol is absolutely sanctimonious and priggish. (No, that is not a
typo for "piggish". If you don't know this word, you might be a prig. Or
you might not. Go and check.)
This leads me to my next rant, which is actually a continuation of
the above. People got all bent out of shape when U2 finished #29 in this
poll. I thought it was too low myself, at first. Then I looked at the
poll and how it was constructed more carefully; as a result, I think we
should be celebrating that they were so highly ranked. Before I explain
this, let me tell you the reason behind why I even wanted to do this.
There is this misconception among VERY MANY subscribers to this list
that high quality rock music didn't exist before 1980 (some of the more
blasphemous and underinformed younger readers draw the line,
unbelievably, at 1990). Obviously, this is blatantly and embarrasingly
wrong. (I remember Benjamin Franklin's quote, "It is better to be
thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.", whenever
I read misguided posts from people who clearly have no conception of the
history of rock music.) This is the issue I wish to address by using the
VH1 poll, imperfect as it is, as a benchmark.
The poll was constructed by tabulating the votes of approximately
600 professional musicians, past and present; in legal terms, "a jury of
their peers". While these people's opinions are not any better than
ours, they did have the opportunity to pay proper homage to acts that
have stood the test of time and have directly influenced their own work.
Yes, in such a poll, older acts would by default have a better chance of
placing higher than younger acts. But, that's not a bad thing. If it
weren't for the old farts, the younger ones wouldn't have had a music
industry to be a part of. (So there! :)
OK, acknowledging all that, take this into account. Rock and Roll
has existed at least since the mid-50's; not 1990, not 1980, but the
mid-50's (even further back if you properly recognize the
African-American Blues, Gospel, and R&B artists). This poll was meant to
signify the relative worth of the greatest acts of approximately the
last 45 years. People, U2, a band that has only been releasing records
for the last 18 years, finished 29th; THAT'S F**KING FABULOUS!
You still don't believe me? Let's put things in context. Let's
compare U2's place to other bands that started their professional
recording careers in the '80's: R.E.M. (#50), Sting (solo) (#63), Devo
(#82), and Madonna (#86). Notice other popular acts like The Cure and
Depeche Mode (both personal favorites, BTW) didn't even make the list.
They finished 21 PLACES above their closest '80's rival! Yowza! :)
"OK, but David, what about the acts that started in the '70's, but
didn't get really popular until the '80's?" Good question; here are the
answers: Michael Jackson (#40), Van Halen (#48), Peter Gabriel (#53),
Talking Heads (#66), The Pretenders (#69), Stevie Ray Vaughn (#70). Only
two acts - The Artist (aka, Prince) (#18) and The Police (#10) -
finished above U2. So, in the opinion of all the great musicians around
today, U2 is the 3rd Greatest Band since the late '70's. Now, do I
personally like Prince and The Police more than U2? HELL NO!! However,
OBJECTIVELY SPEAKING, are they more significant acts than U2 when one
takes the entire spectrum of the history of Rock and Roll? Prince,
probably; The Police, maybe/maybe not. (Side note: my jaw about hit the
floor in bewildered amazement when I saw how highly The Police finished;
however, I was rolling on the floor with glee because The Police
finished 53 PLACES above Sting's solo career. HA!HA!HA!HA! :)
So, what's the point of all this? U2, in their brief 18-year
recording history, is considered by their fellow musicians, past and
present, to be the 29th Greatest Rock and Roll Act of ALL TIME! That's
wonderful AND very flattering! For me personally, U2 would never rank
below 3rd; my favorite acts change places from week-to-week and very
often (especially recently) U2 have been/are/will be #1. You know, as
they do more polls in the future, U2 will go up. If they do this again
in the next 3-4 years, I wouldn't be surprised if they finished in the
top 15. Only after they are no longer a group will they ever crack the
Top 10. Sad but true. :(
Let's end on a happy note, shall we? If you were to take a poll of
the greatest live acts still performing today, U2 would win this hand
down. As Larry very often has said, "Live is where we live." How true!
ZooTV and POPMart, when you combine the music with the visuals, IMHO,
are the greatest stadium tours that have ever been, period. Only The
Rolling Stones and Pink Floyd (if they are still an active group) could
possibly put on a stadium show that could rival U2's in both aspects;
however, in the end, our group wins! :)
My fingers are tired. All these lines....all these lines...these
evil, evil lines...they are sooooooo draining! ;)
David Way, The Loquacious One
P.S. If you want to pick on VH1 for this list, consider this. They also
conducted two more separate polls for the Top 10 of All Time among the
staff of VH1 and the on-line readers. U2 didn't place AT ALL in the
on-line readers' poll, but finished tied for 5th (with Led Zeppelin) in
the staff poll. VH1 actually deserves credit here. Unbelievable, but
true.
______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0b2 on Fri Dec 04 1998 - 21:07:33 PST