For real? This is actually a discussion? I haven't read the full thread, so I don't know how ridiculous this gets. Like the band or not, like the film or not, there is so much more to discuss or debate. This is a two second moment of shared comradery between two friends of three decades. As far as it "belonging in a rock concert", I'd say it was a spontaneous action in which we are shown the genuine affection and gratitude that these band members still share for each other after a long career.
Have we ever seen Mick Jagger hug Keith Richards, or Pete Townshend kiss Roger? Not that I can recall. Before everyone jumps down my throat for such a lofty comparison, I am not saying that U2 are better or worse than the Stones or the Who, I'm simply saying that the three bands might be comparable when discussing this level of career longevity. Most bands of this success, and staying power, don't seem to display the same level of friendship and enjoyed collaboration; and that's what seems to make U2 unique (not better or worse). I’ll admit, I’m a pretty obsessive U2 fan, but I’ll also go on record as saying that I think The Who are the greatest rock band ever. Granted, Pete and Roger were never the best of friends but their “co-worker” mentality, in their later years, has, in my opinion, reduced their recent performances to simply novel displays of their aged mastery, which is great to witness but still very mechanical and expected.
Whether you hate their recent albums, or the lead singer’s politics, a U2 show is still exciting, genuine and spontaneous, and it’s impossible to imagine those four guys performing without those elements. I guess my point is that when the lead singer of a band can sincerely kiss his bassist on the mouth, after thirty long years, it’s a moment of band chemistry that belongs in a technologically ground-breaking 3D concert movie as much as any one of their top ten singles.
reply
share