Life: Under Construction

Boisterous Bono

Jonathon Ross is interviewing Bono, from U2, and he asks the Irish singer why it is that he gets so much flak and criticism. Bono's response is that it is for two reasons: one, he can actually be legitimately annoying and second, his music tends to be joyous which isn't as easy as being negative and seems to irritate people. I agree with two of Bono's points: one, that it is harder to be uplifting than demoralizing and that any attempt to express that uplifted quality can often be met by criticsm and derision. As to his third point, that he is irritating, I will offer no comment as I have never met the man and have never found myself especially irritated by the few U2 songs (OK, I admit there are more than just a few!) that live in my I-pod.

You and your co-worker sit awkwardly next to each other in complete silence, someone has to say something. But what? You've already commented on the weather, the only other thing you can think to say is to joke about how many grammatical errors there were in an email that got sent out this morning. Immediately the awkwardness is broken and you and your colleague talk happily for a few minutes about how the person who sent the email is an idiot. Negativity, in the form of gossip in this instance, is surprisingly easy, much easier than sharing with your co-worker how excited you are that you got assigned a new project by your boss or that you've met someone new and you think this might work out. The difference between the positive and the negative is that to say something positive, you really have to put a piece of yourself out there and give the person you're speaking to some personal information whether it is a fact from your life or your feelings and opinions. To critique something, on the other hand, you really don't have to put yourself out there, instead you are throwing something or someone else out there to be judged.

During the time that I lived in England, someone asked how I was and I responded with my usual 'Good' which to me meant normal. The person who asked me gave me a inquisitive look and then asked if I had noticed that in England, when asked how they are doing, people predominantly respond with 'Not Bad'. She found it interesting that English people's 'normal' involved nothing actually being wrong wheras I was expressing that my 'normal' involved everything being hunky-dory. It was the typical glass half empty or half full paradigm. After this conversation, I noticed that whenever someone asked me how I was doing and I responded with 'Good', they would look a tiny bit surprised and would ask why life was so good, as if they were expecting me to explain that I had just won a nice chunk of change in the lottery.

I don't think that British culture is innately depressed (i.e. glass half full) but their culture is very critical. From the school yard to the Houses of Parliament, from the newspapers to the late-night television, it is a very critical society. I think that tendency to be negative has made them insecure in the sense that there is a reticence to put anything out there, even if it just that you are feeling happy for no reason at all. Even something as small as that could be picked on. Whether it is a construct of fame or just his personality, Bono has thrown caution to the wind and created music that expresses the joy that he feels. Well done man, if only more people would give up the lure of office gossip and run around singing songs of happiness!

Kings of Blunt Force

When I had just graduated from uni, I got an internship at a boutique PR agency. It turned out that 'internship' was code for doing gofer work like picking up the office dog's poop, running personal bank errands for the other employees and running all over town looking for a particular 'Us Weekly' magazine. The only really good thing that came out of it is my appreciation of the Kings of Leon. On the rare occasions that my boss would swan into the office after a leisurely lunch, she would turn to me and say 'we need to listen to the Kings of Leon' at which point I would open the I-tunes on my computer and pump up the volume on my speakers.

When I handed in my notice a few months later, I discretely burned copies of both 'Aha Shake Heartbreak' and 'Youth and Young Manhood' to take as my parting gift. I'm surprised that my I-pod didn't refuse to keep playing those albums on loop...those songs were with me as I pounded the pavement in NY, they kept me company when I was all alone in SF and I was even so keen on them that I dragged them into my yoga classes (my apologies to my old students)! I don't think there was a single song on either of those albums that I did not like. Every song was filled with rip-roaring riffs and rusty, unintelligible vocals that carried me away. 

When 'Because of the times' was released, I downloaded it from I-tunes without a second thought. Even though I didn't love every song, I could appreciate the more polish sound the band had progressed to. Songs like 'Arizona' and 'Fans' were listened too until I could hear them in my sleep. Then 'Only By The Night' was released in September of last year. I listened to 'Sex on Fire' and wasn't that impressed. I postponed getting the album until earlier this week when I was craving some new music on my I-pod so badly I decided to give it a go.

I won't say anything like 'I hate it' or 'I'll never listen to them again' but this album just strikes me as so blunt...it terms of the melodies, the rhythm, the lyrics and even the song titles. None of these songs are reminiscent of the rock'n'roll crooners that wrote their first two albums. Perhaps, my uneducated ear is letting me down and I am not recognizing the superb musical intellect of these guys but I just find it really hard to believe that THIS is the album that gets them recognized by the establishment (the Grammy's)!!

I haven't given up on them yet, I am still trying to warm to their latest, but I can't help but put out a silent plea that their next album is a little more old skool!