There's no question that Ireland's U2 is the most "important" band in rock today, when you consider the medium is bloated with bands who care more about their looks than their music (judging by the album art, U2 is certainly not primping in the mirror); or that rock has fallen on enough hard times to be replaced by disco and rap as the dominant pop sound of the '80s; or that any band which does have some sort of social/ cultural awareness, such as the roots rockers, isn't even considered for commercial radio airplay.
It's also high time that Christian imagery/mysticism is properly used in rock, without sounding like some act's pulpit-pounding schtick, and that larger issues than "fight for your right to party" are set to a contemporary soundtrack - although I don't know why we have to look across the Atlantic to tell us what's right and wrong about this country, as do U2 in their excoriation of our Central American policy or nonpolicy in the new song, "Bullet The Blue Sky".
Historically, however, the greatest rock 'n' roll is made by those who take the music, but not themselves, seriously. The Beatles, the Stones, the Who, the Grateful Dead were all great clowns with a healthy respect for rock's traditions and potential. Contrast them to these lads, who seem to be full of themselves - not as "poseurs, "granted, but as "artistes".
"The Joshua Tree" - referring to a succulent native to the desert Southwest - positions U2 into the American Top 10 for the first time in the band's nine-year, five-album history, primarily because they've shown the ability to remain fresh for an entirely new constituency. It's a healthy development for pop music, and it reaffirms that the band's resources and visions do, in fact, run deep.
But for me, the albums "October" and "War", their second and third, respectively, made for the best of U2, before I got tired of taking the band seriously. "The Joshua Tree" might well be, as evidenced by sales and critics both, the band's best effort, but it's not a whole lot of fun, bordering on the pretentious.
After "War", the band recruited soundmaster Brian Eno and Daniel Lanois to produce "The Unforgettable Fire". The result was music more seamless, more textured, even more self-conscious, if that was possible - while aptly retaining the Edge's signature guitar sound and the band's marching-off-to-glory rhythms that marked them as something different nine years ago. "The Joshua Tree", also produced by Eno and Lanois, is a natural sequel, building on the band's new-found sense of dynamics, which mix delicate instrumental vamping with rousing, climactic flourishes. The result is music that both soothes and inspires, music that is anthemic, music with style. And despite the studio-perfect sound, elevated to a high art here, it's music that's readily translatable to live performance.
But one is only as good as one's material. Side One is masterful: " Where The Streets Have No Name, I Still haven't Found What I'm Looking for, With Or Without You" and "Bullet The Blue Sky", in order, are U2 at their best. By Side Two, however, I'm losing interest.
So the purpose for musicians, critics and to some degree fans, remains: how to take a precious slice of pop music seriously enough to have fun with it, to rejoice and respect. It's a hell of a balancing act for a heavy band. (3 and 1/2 stars) - MARTY RACINE
Stand Up The Del Fuegos Slash
Like other particularly American rock bands of the early '80s - rootsy, psychedelic, etc. - Boston's Del Fuegos figure it's about time to shed quaint underground status and head right for the mainstream's respectability.
It's a natural, human desire in the biz, to reap as much recognition as possible. It also tends to depersonalize bands.
Such has happened to the Fuegos in this, their third album. Or maybe it's just that the band has "matured" to the point where they don't give a hoot about originality. They grew up on the Rolling Stones and fellow citymates, the J. Geils Band, and if they sound like a funky combination of the two, well, that's cool.
So, as a measure of, uh, "development," the band goes for more ornamentation here - cellos, horns, background vocals, a dobro, plenty of "guest" artists - rather than trying to write better songs. Me, I like their earlier songs better. I don't need a symphony to listen to rock 'n' roll. And I don't need lead vocalist Dan Zanes yelling in my ear. His voice can get on your nerves.
But be advised: This band is better live than on record. When they appear here, I'll go in a heartbeat, just to watch a rock 'n' roll band. Unfortunately, the biz demands "product," so here it is. (2 and 1/2 stars) - MARTY RACINE