I couldn't agree more. U2's latest album is pretty lame. My sister's an avid fan and even she was underwhelmed by it. It's just really cliche-ridden - it's like they avoided doing anything new at all costs. Most of the tracks just serve to remind you of one of their earlier, better songs. Paul McCartney's album is much better. It's a bit patchy, but when it's good its very good. I don't think it's entirely insane to say that
Jenny Wren is a song of Beatles quality. Discuss
The best way I can describe U2 is with one word: mediocre. They're superbly, incredibly, amazingly...mediocre. They don't suck by any means, and they aren't completely awesome. So they're just.. mediocre. I like a number of their hits, though. I think they write the simplest mass-consumed pop-rock since the 1950s (in terms of lyrics, chords, melodies, etc). Very generic stuff, but catchy. They were kinda edgy in the early 80s, and that was probably their best period. Still, their stuff was really simple. Maybe it's a punk-roots thing.
The first seven songs on "Chaos and Creation" are stellar. They definitely top-loaded the album. After that, the songs are all weaker efforts, but still very good compared to the total pap he's capable of (See
Pipes of Peace). All in all, it's a really great album though. As far as Jenny Wren goes (and actually the rest of the album), it does have a creative and technical discipline that was typically lacking in his other post-Beatles efforts, so it's really a "return to form" in many ways. He just needs a good "wall" or "mold" to keep him in check -- to contain his boundless creative ambitions. In the case of the Beatles it was Lennon, and in this case it seems to have been stern producer Nigel Godrich that kept him in line (and Paul actually listened for a change, instead of pulling an ego-experience thing). Great music resulted.
Benj
