U2 and How Not to Milk It

Tomorrow night, U2 is invading Goldstar’s hometown of Pasadena, California.  Traffic inconveniences aside, the Rose Bowl show has generated a lot of excitement.

But why should that be the case? This is an OLD band.  To put it in equivalent terms, it would be as if the Beatles toured in the mid-90s or as if the Rolling Stones…wait, the Rolling Stones are still touring.

Nevermind.

It’s a world of old bands touring.  In fact, you’d be hard pressed to find a young band that could fill the Rose Bowl.  Radiohead?  Maybe.  Probably 2 or 3 years ago, but I’m not sure now.  There must be one or two, but concerts have basically become an old man’s (or woman’s or band’s) game

This isn’t news.  We wrote about this months ago. In fact, in the last year, it’s pretty much become caricature, and if at any point, you’d like to get a full dose of oldie concert bashing, just cruise over to Bob Lefsetz’s site, where it’s 50/50 today’s post is about how pathetic some old geezer rockers are.

But he’s got a point.  Most of these bands (AC/DC, Springsteen) should call their tours “Milkin’ It ’09.”

And while U2 could (and does) come in for some of that criticism, I think it’s important to give them credit for bringing something special to the audience.  Sure, they’re going to play the old tunes, and maybe their last album wasn’t terrific, but if they were really Milkin’ It, would they build The Claw?

I think not. In fact, to get a full idea of exactly how super awesome The Claw is, spend a minute or two with the LA Times interactive widget that explains it a bit.

The point is that this show may be bombastic and overdone, but it’s being done FOR the audience.  Purists can say, “it’s about the music,” and they’re right, but only partly.  The music is a necessary condition, but is it sufficient?

In other words, can you just stand on stage and play?  In a world of hero worship, yes.  It’s absolutely enough simply to be in the presence of your idols.

And now, I don’t think that’s the point.  Perhaps stars have been humanized by more and more access, but we don’t see them as superhuman anymore, and we’re probably not as impressed.

Also, I suspect that we feel empowered enough by the changes in technology over the last decade or two that we expect them to do something special for us when we lay down our hard-earned money to see them.

And that’s why I admire U2.  They don’t HAVE to do this to sell sufficiently well to put millions in their personal pockets on tour.  But they do it because they’re still trying to do something special, something new, something beyond just standing on stage and hammering through the songs we all know by heart.

In other words, just because they’re ancient doesn’t mean they’re not Live 2.0.

Because at its heart, the Live 2.0 phenomenon is about the live experience being more valuable, having more richness and dimensions to it, and being more important than the recorded performance.  You can get an excellent sound experience at home, if you want, well beyond the point where most people can hear the difference.

And you can sit in a hall while a handful of old-timers recites its hits, while occasionally glancing at their watches to see how soon the show ends.

But with U2, you get something more.  You know their music is great, but it’s also good to know that they’re not looking at their live performances as an afterthought.

They put the audience first, and it shows.

They’re filling the Rose Bowl this weekend.