Celebrity Inertia

Since everyone else is talking about U2's latest CD, I thought I'd chime in on a tangential subject.

U2 is a popular band. That's a sort of understatement. They've gone beyond mere "celebrity" and moved into a category for which I cannot find an appropriate word. Call it "Supercelebrity" or something. By which I mean, they continue to be popular because they're popular. A sort of perpetual-motion machine. Their celebrity produces enough energy to sustain their celebrity in perpetuity.

The release of a new U2 album is an event, and I sympathize with any reviewer forced to review one. From my point of view, any work should be critiqued on its own merits rather than feeding off the goodwill of earlier efforts. But do we allow this with Supercelebrities? If U2 had released only 2 previous albums, how would a new release be viewed? What if those albums had been "Achtung Baby" and "The Joshua Tree"? What if those albums had been "Zooropa" and "Pop"?

Is "How to Dismantle an Atomic Bomb" selling well because it's a good record, or . . . because it's U2? At this point it's hard to say. If it's still selling well in a few months, we can probably call it a legitimate hit. But If U2 records started decreasing in quality, how long would their Supercelebrity status sustain them? Often, even if a new work is quite inferior to an artist's previous works, the artist will still get a pass. This is mainly because it's ceased being about the work and has become more about the artist. But this seems to ignore the fact that it was the quality of previous works that was responsible for the artist's status in the first place.

When an artist has built up enough well-received product, the body of work by an artist feeds that artist's celebrity status to the point where new product really isn't necessary. Simon and Garfunkel's concert in Central Park wasn't the big event it was because they'd just spent the year on the pop charts.

As the name of this blog suggests, I am/used to be a big fan of Daniel Amos. I think they peaked at "Doppelganger" and "Vox Humana." Their next album, "Fearful Symmetry," was a bit of a letdown, but "Darn Floor, Big Bite" was great. The next one, "Kalhoun," not my cup o' tea, but I did end up really liking "Motorcycle" after awhile.

But since then? Each successive album just seems more and more . . . er, . . . dull. Their latest, "Mr. Buechner's Dream," just didn't work for me. But once upon a time they were to me what U2 is to a lot of people. Plus, there are all of Terry Taylor's side projects: his solo recordings, The Swirling Eddies and the Lost Dogs. The first three Eddies albums were good. But "Sacred Cows" is probably the worst recording I ever (used to) own. The first three Dogs albums were good, but the last two were pretty lame (which I chalk up to the death of Gene Eugene).

So when I read rave reviews of "Mr. Buechner's Dream" and "Nazarene Crying Towel," I have to ask: What am I missing? This isn't the band I used to follow so fervently. Is it me, or are these reviewers giving high marks to these albums by Terry Taylor & Co. based on his/their reputation alone?

If I might apply this to the world of politics, . . . there are people who continue to vote for a particular party simply out of inertia. They've always voted a certain way; they will continue to vote a certain way. It would take long deprogramming sessions before some Democrats would notice that their party is not the same party it was 40 years ago when they first registered to vote. And if George Bush really starts to mess up, it would require serious interventions to get some Bush supporters to admit it. (I recognize I might even be one of them.)

It seems important that we not give in to inertia with our support of anything, whether something trivial like pop music, or something serious like politics. This is part of what it means to be faithful to the truth. Not that we question everything, but that we allow for the discovery that what is true is not always what we expect to be true.