Christopher Rush

After a painfully long five-year wait, U2’s latest album, Songs of Innocence, burst on the scene like no album before (and possibly likely since).  For no rational reason, this upset a great number of people for a variety of self-serving reasons.  While we advertised an objective review of the album, we first need to examine the tempestuous piffle that arose about the album’s very existence and entrance into our lives.  Next issue in part two, we will examine the content of the album itself, certainly a much happier exploration.

Not being a mindless consumer erotically devoted to whatever soul-syphoning piece of technological pap advertisements and other minions of Beëlzebub tell me to worship with God’s money, I do not have a cellular phone or a tablet (yes, I have a computer, but it’s used mostly for the performance of my job and manufacturing beautiful things such as this issue, so I’m not wholly opposed to technology qua technology).  Yes, people I love have cellular phones and tablets, and that’s fine for them.  I know from personal experience and interaction they aren’t the mindless cyphers about whom Wordsworth, Johnson, Auden and so many others have written for centuries in the post-Industrial Revolutionary ages.  And certainly you aren’t like that, either.  You, surely, are not addicted to social media or screen fondling of any kind.  It’s them, really.  Those poor saps out there who need our pity and our love.  These are the, well, for lack of a less accurate word, imbeciles who ranted and groused and bloviated about Songs of Innocence appearing unbidden and at no cost whatever to them in their iTunes accounts and on their iPhones and on their iPods and on their iPads.  “How dare U2 put their new album on my device for free!” or words to that effect.  What a world.

I admit freely I have an iTunes account, and I even have an “old” iPod, so I am not trying to hypocritically decry the existence of these things in our lives.  If anyone needs a detailed explanation of the veracity of the topic sentence of the prior paragraph, perhaps we can address that in a future objective, calm exposition (similar to the calm, objective exposition we are experiencing together presently).  I have used my iTunes account infrequently of late, though I admit I have used it in the past for many things such as Intro. to Humanities and personal use in days gone by.  The only time my iPod sees any action is two-fold: a) as an alarm clock (so about 12 seconds a day) and b) when I need to go out and do yard work (so not very much).  I’m not bragging; these are simply the facts.  Like everyone else in the entire universe, when I am instructed to click on the “accept these terms” dialogue box with the option of reading the terms themselves, I click on the box without reading the actual terms.  Before you accuse me of being a “mindless consumer,” please know I don’t have a credit card saved on my iTunes or PlayStation account, so I’m not worried when the countless litanies of account hackings occur, nor am I all that concerned about whatever terms can do to me and my information.  I don’t post any pictures, I don’t have a “smart” phone (preferring, instead to try to be a smart person), and a comment from me on my Facebook page is a wonderfully rare as an album from Boston.  Or, until recently, an album from U2.  If any hooligans want my information, they are probably going to get it without me making it easier on them.  If you want to store bank accounts on your iTunes account, go for it.  The point at present, though, is those “terms of agreement” no one ever reads.  Apparently, one of those terms we all agreed to was letting Apple put an album in our accounts whether we wanted it or not.  You and I agreed to it.  Getting mad at something you agreed to allow happen does not say much for you (not “you,” of course, but those people).

A few issues ago, Rolling Stone (not the most reputable bastion of meaningful discourse or aesthetic opinion, of course) ran a mildly-intriguing cover story about U2 and this hullaballoo.  Adam Clayton, as is his wont, gave us the most helpful insight into the situation.  It was never U2’s intention to foist the album upon every single iTunes and iThis and iThat account.  The band simply wanted to make the album free for download to whoever wanted it.  It was all Apple’s idea to force the album unbidden into your account.  So getting mad at U2 for a) something that isn’t their fault and b) something you agreed to allow Apple to do in their terms of agreement to which you agreed without reading is puerility at its zenith (in this context, at least).  Here was U2, one of the greatest bands of all time, willing to give their latest, long-awaited album to the digital world for free, and much of the digital world responded with vitriol.  What a world.

Some people complained about the apparent “arrogance” of the band and its infatuation with media spotlight.  We have not heard from the band in 5 years!  The 360° Tour ended over three years ago.  If you people know of other appearances by U2 in any significant fashion since then, please let me know — I’d be glad to experience that.  Strange how the same people who own iTunes accounts, iPods, iPads, and other things complain about U2 “selling out” to Apple.  Take a moment and ponder the irony of such a situation.  Sure, the U2-loaded iPod a few years ago may have been a bit extreme, but would the response of an iPod loaded with Disney tunes have received the same backlash?  Doubtful.  A band that does not release music or appear in public until its members are satisfied with their album after over three years of dedication and tinkering and experimenting and soul-searching cannot accurately be labelled “arrogant” or “attention seeking.”  I’m sure they popped on some talkshow or event here and there, but certainly not anything credibly worthy of “arrogant” or “attention seeking.”

Some lesser musician-like people (Nick Mason does not fit here) groused U2’s giving their music away for free was an insult and detrimental betrayal to the hundreds of thousands of struggling musicians who have to sell their music because they aren’t rich and famous like U2, and by setting a precedent of giving their music away for free U2 has permanently damaged the marketplace and all consumers will demand free music forevermore.  First of all, “struggling musician-type person,” by opening your mouth in derision against U2 you have already done far more damage to your reputation than any action U2 could do.  Try to realize you will never be anywhere near as good as they are: your lyrics will be inferior, your musical strains will be inferior, you as an “artist” will forever be inferior to them.  Their actions do not devalue your music: your shoddy, sub-mediocre musicianship devalues your music.  I suppose the complainers in this category made sure they didn’t have any music files they “shared” from anyone and certainly never downloaded any files according to royalty-eschewing methods.  Complaining against a band’s generosity betrays one’s own absence of generosity, proving such complainers are quite likely in the “music business” for all the wrong reasons (perhaps that is too harsh: several of the wrong reasons, then).  I guess they never read Lewis Hyde’s The Gift: Imagination and the Erotic Life of Property.  If you haven’t read that one yet, faithful reader, I urge you to.

Some complained because Songs of Innocence is not revolutionary like Achtung Baby or All That You Can’t Leave Behind; some complained about U2 because they think U2 is old hat.  Well, you can’t please everyone.  A band tries to break away and experiment with new sounds, new feelings, new content, and the “ol’ faithful” are up in arms.  A band maintains its sound, its “tried and true” formulae, and the “ol’ faithful” are up in arms because the band is slacking off and regurgitating and repackaging old material (unless it’s AC/DC).  Is U2 “old hat”?  I tell you what.  U2’s tripartite métier seems to me a) making the world a better place through quality music and thoughtful lyrics, b) advocating universal justice and equal rights, and c) providing for people an enjoyable musical-and-life experience.  If these are “old hat,” the world does not deserve U2, even U2 for free.  If truth and introspection and openhanded generosity of spirit are old fashioned, then we are all in far more trouble than we think we are.

I have been eagerly anticipating Songs of Ascent for over 1,000 days, longer than Anne Boleyn was queen of England.  Out of nowhere, Songs of Innocence appeared.  For free!  11 new songs from one of the best bands of all time.  For free.  11 ultra-personal songs of soul-bearing, openhanded generosity.  I don’t need another Achtung Baby or something “revolutionary.”  A new album from U2 is revolutionary enough.  And I didn’t have to pay for it.

Dear world: U2 has given us a wonderful gift.  As we shall see in part two, it’s also a very good album.  Don’t prove your utter undeserving worthlessness by complaining about it.  Maybe that was too harsh.  I take that back.  Don’t be lump.  No more cynicism.  Be grateful.  Be thankful.  Be gracious.

Thank you, U2.  I, for one, appreciate what you have given us.