It's. Only. A. Rock. Band.

There are more theologically significant bands than U2. Definitely.

Bonnie Prince Billy
Radiohead
Nick Cave

Clearly, I think U2’s lyrics are the kinds which Balthasar would pick up and use if he could do an “Apocalypse of the English Soul” today. But I also think Nirvana would be there, too.

Perhaps, but despite all your rage I suspect that you are rather more than a rat in a cage.

De gustibus non disputandum but more and more as I move on in life it strikes me that rock is only actually good at conveying a certain and rather limited range of thought and emotion. It’s a range one spends most of adolescence and one’s early 20s in, so it can seem rather all consuming at that point. It seems natural, as one grows older, to mostly transition to real music.

Not that I don’t still enjoy turning on the Beatles or Metallica or Coldplay or occasionally even U2 (from the October – Atchung Baby era), but for a magazine like America to be writing Deeply Serious commentary on a rock band is, frankly, a bit embarrassing.

Darwin

Your comments remind me of the silliness that one finds with some critics of Tolkien, who said all fantasy is “fit for children only.” Indeed, it just reminds me of someone who wants to desperately pretend they are grown up by giving away what they consider to be the “chidlish things in life,” proving they lack real maturity.

Well, I certainly can’t dispute that my comments remind you of something, since that is, after all, something only you can know. Still, that some things are wrongly described as being only for the young does not mean that nothing is best suited to the more angst ridden periods of one’s life, but not to maturity.

Be that as it may, my own experience (and hardly, I gather, a unique one) is that from my current vantage point in life rock music (not just in particular, but in its musical structure) is able to reflect only a small portion of what the human experience has to offer — and not necessarily the best or more interested parts.

It now strikes me as rather thin broth compared to orchestral on choral music (or in the standard rather than technical usage of the term: classical music). Very suitable to certain moods, but generally not worth taking too seriously.

Much as I love U2 and ‘Beautiful Day,’ the lyric ‘You love this town, even if that doesn’t ring true, you’ve been all over, and it’s been all over you’ is not exactly Tolkienish in its depth and complexity.

Actually, now that you mention it, John Henry, perhaps there’s much more in this than I though. If we could get our boy Origen on the topic, we could probably start off with three to four pages on “You love” before moving on this “this town” for the following chapter. It’d be like Commentary on The Song of Songs all over again. Good times…

Contrary to the tone of this post, the article’s author is rather humble and kindly in his assessment of U2, as positive as it may be.

And I think this segues with what Henry (and I), I believe, are saying:

The yearning that U2’s music exemplifies and elicits need not be assumed to stand in for the whole of a theological life in order to be the pleasure that it is as both harbinger and holder of hope-in-the-wanting. Whatever salvation is, through such finite formations is it allowed.

I love U2. One of my favorite bands.

This is still absurdly over the top: a releasement to worldly fragility, contingency, beauty, unpredictability, and the gorgeous strangenesses that we make, and that we are.

Darwin didn’t say that rock music is worthless, just that it’s not as deep or rich as classical music. If you want to use Tolkien in an analogy here, a much truer analogy would be this: John Grisham isn’t as deep or rich as Tolkien and Shakespeare, even if he writes some darn good page-turners.

Tom Beaudoin is no theological “wanker.” Anyone familiar with what is going on in contemporary theology knows this.

So many ridiculous definitions of what “real music” and “real theology” are in this thread. I’m guessing most of those making such definitions here are not theologians nor do they have much knowledge of music beyond mere personal preferences. The “rock music” (whatever that is) vs. “real music” binary is, as Henry said, absurd, but it fits right in with all of the other dualisms that haunt the thinking of those who frequent this place.

Theological reflection on rock music — and popular culture in general — is not new. The prejudices here simply flow from the standard high culture vs low culture, often classist, biases. We see it in the way you people talk about liturgy and liturgical music as well. That’s all it is — a more or less classist dualism. (“I used to like rock music, but I grew up.”)

I agree that U2 is “just a rock band,” not because I don’t think rock should be taken seriously as art or even as a theological source, but because they are, in my opinion, boring and most importantly, they act like any other rock band. There are much more challenging and important artists through which to do theological reflection, both in terms of the music and lyrics themselves AND the way the music is made.

Michael I,

Nick Cave rules!

Some “classical” music is indeed rich and deep (I like it, as well as other types of “real” music you might have in mind), but a good bit of it was just the pop music of its day.

That’s completely illogical. The fact that there exists some non-rich classical music (most of it, in fact) doesn’t change the fact that there is no piece of rock music ever written, or that ever could be written, that would compare to Bach’s B-Minor Mass in its depth and profundity. Nor that there will never be a rock/pop song written that could even conceivably compare to Bach’s Goldberg Variations in the sheer complexity and range that they exhibit. (If you’re not a trained musician, I doubt you would even be able to understand how unbelievably complex the Goldberg Variations are: every third variation is a canon beginning with an increasing interval, and yet it’s done with such skill that most people wouldn’t even notice.)

I really like both John Grisham and Tolkien, both U2 and Bach, both Norman Rockwell and Rembrandt. Doesn’t mean I have to fall into the mindless and indiscriminatory relativism in which all works of art are equal.

S.B. – There is nothing illogical at all about what I said. You’re merely expressing aesthetic opinion. There is, however, a lack of logic in your own view, as you reduce musical “richness” and “depth” to technical complexity. There is certainly more to music than that. Also, I never said all works of art are equal. But it would not be an S.B. conversation if you didn’t deliberately attempt to misrepresent what I said. At least you are consistent.

Aside from the utterly stupid “rock music vs classical music” binary I am seeing here, I am concerned, too, about the elevation of Western “orchestral,” “classical,” etc. music over non-Western music, as if it were the pinnacle of music.

Such views show a lack of exposure to other “real” music, a very narrow view of what music in fact is, and a reductionistic view of what makes music “good.”

Then you should have no problem with the claim that some genres of art are on a different level than others.

Why? They are not equivalent statements.

Your answer was that a lot of classical music was the pop music of its day — which is true but illogical, because the fact that some classical music is non-deep does nothing to refute the point that other classical music is deeper than rock music.

Nothing “illogical” at all. Initially you said, simply, that rock music is not as deep or rich as rock music. That’s an utterly simplistic, stupid statement. I replied saying that not all “classical” music is deep or rich. Nothing “illogical.”

You are using empty terms like “rich” and “deep” and not explaining how you would judge whether or not a piece of music is “rich” or “deep” other than by technical complexity. I called you on it, and you said that’s not the only way you would judge a piece of music, but fail to mention any other criteria.

All you are doing is speaking from your own aesthetic preferences. Which is fine. But don’t claim that you are speaking objectively in any sense.

…because the fact that some classical music is non-deep does nothing to refute the point that other classical music is deeper than rock music.

All one need say,then, is that some pieces of music are “deeper” and “more rich” than other pieces of music. As you would no doubt now admit, after I called you to clarify your points, some pieces of rock music are much more deep and rich than some pieces of classical music. By your own admission, your blanket claims about the superiority of certain genres are absurd.

I called you on it, and you said that’s not the only way you would judge a piece of music, but fail to mention any other criteria.

Have you ever even heard Bach’s B-Minor Mass? Brahms’ 4 symphonies? Beethoven’s late string quartets? Mozart’s Requiem? vaughan Williams’ “Fantasia on a Theme by Thomas Tallis”?

If you don’t know what I’m talking about, then you need to educate yourself. It’s impossible to write to an ignorant person and to convey, via mere words, the depths that can be expressed in great music, just as much as it’s impossible to truly describe the color red to a person blind from birth.

All of this to avoid the point: I can imagine someone waxing eloquent about Bach’s B-Minor Mass. But waxing eloquent about U2’s line, “it’s been all over you”? Come on.

Here, you are talking about two particular pieces of music. Fine, compare them. Of course that particular U2 song has less depth than that particular Mass from Bach. But your generalizations are not helpful.

Do you understand the concept of an average?

Yes. But I don’t like it if it’s used to make ridiculous generalizations.

Some U2 songs are richer than some pieces by Vivaldi; but there are many other pieces of classical music with a depth and range of emotion that simply isn’t expressed well in the limited format of guitar/bass/drums/4-minute song. If you’re not denying THAT point, then I’m not sure why you’re arguing at all.

What I am arguing with is your previous blanket statement that classical music has more “depth” and “richness” than rock music.

And here I would take issue with your reductionistic view of rock music, i.e. “guitar/bass/drums/4-minute song.”

If you don’t know what I’m talking about, then you need to educate yourself. It’s impossible to write to an ignorant person and to convey, via mere words, the depths that can be expressed in great music, just as much as it’s impossible to truly describe the color red to a person blind from birth.

I know all of those pieces of music, of course. I love music. I’m a musician. You’re telling me I’m “ignorant” when it comes to music, but you’re the one who seems to have difficulty talking about music in any sensible way, making blanket statements along genre lines and then retreating into “you just can’t convey these things in mere words” territory.

What’s behind the impulse of leftists to bristle with such indignation at the notion that some genres of art have a wider capacity and range of possibilities than other genres of art? Do they get just as mad if someone suggests that Shakespeare is more sophisticated than Danielle Steel?

But you wouldn’t take issue for any particular reason that you can state…

Um, perhaps because rock music is not limited to these characteristics? Thought it was obvious what I meant. But it is YOU we are talking about. I’ll spell it out for you more clearly next time.

Anyway, that’s what U2 does. Always. They have a guitarist, a bassist, and a drummer, and they write songs. Sometimes they add keyboard sounds for a little sweetener. Sometimes they use an automatic drum sound (Pop album, anyone?). There’s not a lot of variety in the format here.

“Keyboard sounds for a little sweetener”? You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

In retrospect, a second year college seminar was probably not the best place to appreciate Origen’s commentary.

Indeed. Education is wasted on the young.

All joking aside, I really enjoyed Origen’s commentary, but we certainly weren’t well equiped to discuss it at that point.

On the actual point now being disputed at length:

If anyone took me to be suggesting that all classical music is inherently superior to all rock music, that was certainly not my intention. There is a great deal of classical music which is mediocre — though since much of it is a couple hundred years old, a great deal of that has been mercifully forgotten by now.

However, I do think there’s generally a quality ceiling above which rock music is highly unlikely if not downright unable to reach, and that ceiling is lower than the ceiling for classical music. To make an analogy which will doubtless annoy some people: There are certainly some very good comic books (or to be artsy “graphic novels”) out there, and there are a great many very poor novels, but the best comic books will never be as good as the best novels because the genre itself has limits imposed upon it the form.

Also, on a side note, I’m not clear how one can simultaneoously claim that classical music is just the pop music of the past (which leaves aside why there are to this day composers in the classical genre — again “classical” in the looser, popular usage of the term) and at the same time argue that the preference for classical music stems from a high versus low culture prejudice.

In regards to this being a Western-centric view of the question: It’s probably significant in this regard that it is mainly only the West which has a tradition of writen/composed music going back for around a millenia. Without both the means to write down how complex music is to be performed and the cultural idea of composership (as opposed to a more tradition-guided approach to music in which particular performers are celebrated but composition is not seen as an individual enterprise) even those with the natural ability to produce such works will not find themselves able to fulfill those gifts and share the results with others.

And I heard it described that way when I happened to be in a studio owned by a producer who has worked with Celine Dion. I’m guessing that he knows quite a bit more about the music business than you do, so it might be wise to ditch the “you don’t know what you’re talking about” attitude.

Darwin, I think part of what I have a problem with is that your view (and that of SB, etc) makes a lot of unstated assumptions about what music is for, for example, that music is like a text one reads or that it is generally a non-participatory activity where the audience “takes it in,” etc. It does not so justice to that variety of world musics, particularly those forms that are participatory.

Interestingly, more and more parallels between ya’ll’s musical tastes and your liturgical tastes are emerging as this conversation continues.

They often don’t have keyboards at all, and if they throw in keyboards on a few songs, it’s usually as background.

Right. That that’s all they do, eh? Write guitar/bass/drums 4-minute pop songs and “throw in” some “keyboards” here and there. Their albums, despite getting more and more boring IMO, are actually much more complex than that in terms of their instrumentation as well as the musical traditions from which they draw.

In the music business, that’s known as “sweetener.”

Not where I come from.

A little jargon there, so sorry if that threw you off.

What “throws me off” is your “thought” process. But I’m learning to anticipate the gaps, overstatements, generalizations, mischaracterizations and flat-out lies with time. Do be patient with me.

Sure, snicker and chortle about Celine Dion, the only point is that someone who has worked with her is likely to know what a particular piece of jargon means in today’s music business. That’s all.

That does not entail that U2 too simply splashes
in some keyboards as background-filler, in the same manner.

Kitsch is kitsch. U2 is not that.