Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
After yesterday's post about the 25th anniversary Rock and Roll Hall of Fame show reminded me of two of the great induction speeches of all time: Bono inducting Springsteen and Springsteen inducting U2. It's interesting the contrast between the two. Bono is practically preaching while Springsteen is almost presenting a paper analyzing U2. But they both have some perfect turns of phrase and accurate, if sometimes ironic, observations.
Bono accurately observes right up front that Springsteen is one of the few megastars to never embarrass themselves - "no bad hair period, even in the 80s" - before pointing out that while Bruce has his own dysfunctions, he was the first one to identify them in his own songs. And his sly joke about the backstage of the hall of fame show looking like Madame Tussaud's had everyone laughing a bit uncomfortably.
There are some wonderfully written phrases here - "eyes that could see through America," "a catastrophe of great songs," "every great rock group is kinda like starting a religion, and Bruce surrounded himself with fellow believers." Here's the whole thing. The audio is not quite synched, so better to just listen to it.
Springsteen's speech was even better. It's pure Springsteen, the perfect mixture of the cerebral and the visceral, wrapped in a self-effacing humor that helps it all go down. There are some great turns of phrase here too - "Bono, singlehandedly pioneering the Irish mullet," "together Larry and Adam create the element that suggests the ecstatic possibilities of that other kingdom, the one below the earth and below the belt, that no great rock band can lay claim to the title without," "Larry bears the burden of being the band's requisite good looking member, something we somehow overlooked in the E street band. We had to settle for charismatic," and best of all, said of Bono, "shaman, shyster, one of the greatest and most endearingly naked messianic complexes in rock and roll - god bless you, man. It takes one to know one, of course."
Comments
Ed:
I saw that header and thought, momentarily, "WTF? Sonny came back from the dead?".
Posted by: democommie | December 6, 2009 9:41 AM
Need caffeine. I read the headline and spent a good 30 seconds wondering a) why Bono and Springsteen would want to indict each other and b) when did either of them become prosecuting attornies with the ability to indict each other.
Drink caffeine (Cherry Coke).
Oh.
Induct.
Not indict.
Makes sense.
Yeah. That's cool.
Posted by: (((Billy))) The Atheist | December 6, 2009 9:53 AM
Nice post Ed. I remember both speeches from when they were originally broadcast given that both presenters distguished themselves.
Given my taste in music is decidedly medium- to low-brow, here's an induction speech by Stephen Tyler for AC/DC. Tyler nails what originally attracted me to the music, why I still buy AC/DC's music, and why I no longer buy Aerosmith's in spite of their being my favorite band when I was in high school during the mid- to late-70s.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 6, 2009 9:54 AM
I love both these guys, but Bono is wrong; Bruce did embarrass himself a little in the 80s (or would have if he hadn't had the sense to scrap this video):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qM6TuZ6lSWI&feature=fvw
Posted by: Matt Benzing | December 6, 2009 12:19 PM
Matt @ 4 - that was eerily similar to Olivia Newton-John's Let's Get Physical video.
Posted by: Michael Heath | December 6, 2009 12:27 PM
Other than being inexplicably popular, I truly do not understand all the hoopla about U2. Their music is pedantic boring pompous swill.
Posted by: Comrade PhysioProf | December 6, 2009 1:01 PM
"Their music is pedantic boring pompous swill."
In that category I would give the award to the Moody Blues, for work they did anytime after 1973.
For U2, otoh, examples?
Posted by: democommie | December 6, 2009 1:06 PM
U2 - anything starting with "The Joshua Tree." More recent material may have gone back to being good, but that album was the first one of theirs that I absolutely hated.
Posted by: Badger3k | December 6, 2009 1:08 PM
badger3k -
That's funny, because a lot of people say that Joshua Tree was their last great album. Of course a lot of younger people think anything before Rattle and Hum sucks and that even that was questionable.
Personally, I really like most everything they've done. It is just important to understand that U2 ultimately is two different bands - what they did before and what they did after Rattle and Hum. Before, Bono was the quintessential badass (pretending that excruciating show at Red Rocks in '83 - sends shivers down my spine). Then he had kids and they got onto a glam rock thing. But unlike a lot of that crap, they sound good and have actually evolved a fair amount since.
Posted by: DuWayne | December 6, 2009 2:29 PM
I am willing to go so far as to say U2's Joshua Tree is an objectively great album- and do defend that claim against any detractors. Larry Mullen's drum work is exquisitely understated and the Edge's strumming guitar play is extremely unique and moving.
Don't be a "paranoid" listener. Put your preconceived ideas and feelings about the band aside. If you can manage to forget that it's U2 I think you stand a much better chance of enjoying one of the best albums of the 80's.
That being said, I wasn't that big of a fan until my brother dragged me to their Zoo TV tour- which was amazing enough to make a true believer of me.
Posted by: Android B | December 6, 2009 5:03 PM
The Joshua Tree has a lot of my favorite U2 songs on it. That album does represent the point at which they went from alternative rock to mainstream.
Posted by: Tommykey | December 6, 2009 11:26 PM
All musical tastes are subjective, of course. Except for Celine Dion. She objectively sucks.
I liked U2 in the early days, then kind of last interest in them for a while. The Joshua Tree is, in my opinion, one of the great albums of all time. But after that, nothing really caught my interest until just the last 3 albums, which have reminded me just how good they can be.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 6, 2009 11:44 PM
Just curious: does anyone know if Adam Clayton ever had any halfway difficult bass parts?
Posted by: cm | December 7, 2009 12:15 AM
Just curious: does anyone know if Adam Clayton ever had any halfway difficult bass parts?
Well, he did the theme for Mission Impossible. Which is why it stinks so bad!! Only kidding!!
Posted by: 386sx | December 7, 2009 2:06 AM
Just curious: does anyone know if Adam Clayton ever had any halfway difficult bass parts?
====
HA! I always thought that Adam Clayton's bass had 3 superfluous strings.
Posted by: Dr.Steve | December 7, 2009 8:17 AM
I think The Joshua Tree is an interesting break-point, as it does have a lot of things about it (aside from the music) that made it influential to this day -- in one sense I'd say it brought back the idea of the concept album. Not in the silly way that Styx tried to do a few years earlier, either. I'd describe it as a concept album with a real concept. (The cover design by itself was influential enough that South Park could take its conventions as read when Cartman puts together he Christian Rock Band). And when I say that I mean instead of trying to write an opera, the band took a sonic concept ad ran with it.
As to the music, I would have to say that the sound of the album, when I compare it to their earlier stuff, marks a maturing of the sound, and a willingness to stretch a bit. The signature of the band was always the echo-ey, spare guitar work from the Edge and Bono's voice, but on The Joshua Tree I think they did a much better job of expanding the palette a bit -- just enough to make the good songs on there great ones.
After Rattle and Hum I have to say those of us in the Alt-rock crowd (this is back in 1990) were less interested in U2, until recently. I always thought their last few efforts showed again a willingness to stretch. In 2000 when I first heard "Beautiful Day" I thought, "Damn, these guys really moved on since I last listened, good on them." I know a lot of folks see it as a return to tradition, but I always thought it showed U2 took the lessons learned earlier and applied them to the sounds that made them great.
Bringing back Brian Eno may have had something to do with it. :-)
I can't bring myself to care about a band's extracurricular activities. Bono wants to preach? Fine. Let him. Do I think he has a lot useful to say about Africa? Sometimes. Sometimes not. None of that affects the sounds I am listening to.
Posted by: Jesse | December 7, 2009 8:46 AM
The Josuha Tree was the last album where U2 didn't sound like just any other rock band. Up to and including that album, you could hear a new song and instantly know it was theirs. Now you need a deejay to tell you it was U2, and not one of several dozen other non-descript bands. There's a reason they started having elaborate stage shows--to cover up their ever-increasing suckiness. All that can be said for them now is that they never fell as far from their height of creativity as did Starship, who hold the record for greatest distance between brilliance and suckiness.
Posted by: James Hanley | December 7, 2009 10:36 AM
Springsteen is not very good, though he did a couple of decent albums. John Mellencamp became what Springsteen wishes he could have been.
U2 are alright but vastly overrated.
Posted by: Dick the Music Critic | December 7, 2009 4:34 PM
Seriously, no one rates Achtung Baby, of the last three albums you could make one good one if you took the best tunes from each.
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | December 8, 2009 1:10 PM
James Hanley wrote:
I totally disagree with this. If anything, I think the opposite is true. Although that's where I kind of lost interest in the band for a while, starting with Achtung Baby I thought the band became considerably more original and unlike any other band in its sound. I can't imagine any other band in the world doing Mysterious Ways or Until the End of the World. Zooropa and Pop were both radical departures in their sound, mixing a lot of dance and hip hop rhythms in, plus weird experiments like Numb. Most of that stuff didn't interest me much, but I don't think you can say it sounded like anyone else.
It was with All That You Can't Leave Behind that they won me back, partially by returning to their more traditional sound but mostly just by writing better songs. Beautiful Day is a great song and Vertigo may be the quintessential U2 song. Like them or hate them, U2 has always reminded me of The Who in that sense - they really don't sound like anyone before them and no one after them ever managed to copy them either. You hear a new song from them and you instantly know it's them.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | December 8, 2009 1:33 PM
Didn't they nearly split up around Achtung Baby, think Bono & The Edge wanted the more industrial/dance sound. The Fly was a good "cross over" track, amazing solo aswell.
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | December 8, 2009 1:59 PM