[Porsche-O-Phile]

I still love U2 - one of my favorite bands (for a popular act). They've constantly pushed the limits of what they were capable of without falling into doing the "same old, same old". I respect that, even if I don't really like the styles they've dabbled with on the surface. I give them a lot of credit for trying it out. Too easy to turn a groove into a rut by just recycling the same old formula. . .

A long-duration musician or band (like U2) is inevitably going to be confronted with this: Either they do the same old thing and try to hold onto an established fan base (at risk of becoming a dinosaur as music continues to evolve around them) or they adapt at risk of being called a "sell-out" or alienating their fan base. Look at Rush or U2 or Marillion or Bowie or Beck. All examples of artists that have adapted to trends around them with good success - typically lamented by "old-time" fans that say "well, their old stuff was better. . ." OTOH, consider Aerosmith, the Stones, etc. These guys stick with what they know, but are largely considered "old farts" in the context of today's music. It's kind of a lose-lose for the artist. . .

The Grammys are a self-indulgent chest-beating exercise by the RIAA and its ilk. It lost credibility for me long ago. It certainly did the other night when it awarded manufactured pop star Kelly Clarkson an award. What a crock. I'm not saying she ain't talented, but there are a zillion others out there just as good or better, just without the blessing of the RIAA overlords.

Music has become such a stupid industry. Give me a good garage or bar band any day. . .