Rewriting your own story: U2 & Songs of Surrender

We all have experienced that thing where a piece of art you love gets revisited by its original creator and then it feels a little... lesser, after the fact. Fandom's push back and the whole affair can seem to ruin the original purity of the work. This has hit big properties: George Lucas and the constant refuddling with the Original Trilogy (I do love the Spesh Edish myself - but Maclunkey??). Many fans wish Jo Rowling would leave well enough alone and stop adding bits and pieces to the Potter legacy (and some just want her to shut up altogether).

Other additions or revisions are welcomed with open arms like a 60-years-later sequel Go Set A Watchman by Harper Lee. Or Taylor Swift's simultaneously giving the bird to her former business partners whilst reclaiming her entire back catalogue by remaking all the recordings she didn't own herself.

Recently U2, the artists on the receiving end of my lifelong dedication, dipped their toes into the mix by releasing Songs of Surrender, a 40-song LP revisiting greatest hits and deep cuts alike with a 2020's lens. The songs range from their first late 1970's single "Out of Control" to tracks off their latest studio album like "Get Out Of Your Own Way." Many are acoustic, some are gentler, and others have whole lyrical revisions and new bridges added to the structure.

U2 fans have a high bar for our boys. Their quality and dedication to craft is so high, which is why we love them. And so it makes sense some are questioning this look backwards when they have always been pushing forward so hard. Is a mostly acoustic covers album of their own work just phoning it in? U2 have been talking a lot about relevancy in the last 5 years. Have they just settled in for a paycheck doing what's easy? The fact that there are a dozen different colored vinyl versions of the album doesn't dispel that suspicion. And it seems to have worked: They debuted at the top of several Billboard charts.

I, for one, am enjoying the new version and the diversity of song choices they made as well as changes in arrangement and structure. I've always loved U2 when they aren't overly concerned about what others are thinking, like when they set out to make a quick EP while doing the ZooTV tour and ended up producing the sublimely off-the-wall Zooropa. They just make great songs without looking like they are trying to impress anybody. The story The Edge tells about the synthesis of this idea is similar: there was no one expecting a new U2 album and he and Bono just started playing around with their own songs. It grew from there.

As for the songs of SOS, with 40 of them, most fan, from casual to obsessed, will find some that standout. For my part, there are some fun versions of their biggest hits like "Beautiful Day" and "One," but their "Pride (In The Name Of Love)" is now my preferred version of the song. It still includes the same power as the original, but it builds towards it more slowly, which they always do well. Always big on deep cuts, I love that they included "If God Will Send His Angels," "Dirty Day," "Miracle Drug," and "Red Hill Mining Town."

Then they include "All I Want Is You" and "Bad," two favorites that have always provided great climaxes for their live shows over the years. Those are favorites of mine already so they had me melting.

Yes, Songs of Surrender may have come with a fully fledged marketing machine aligning with Bono's memoir and preparing the way for their residency at the new Sphere venue in Las Vegas. Yes, they may be contractually in a corner to do these upcoming performances without Larry in the drummer's chair. But at the same time, they seem a little bit more ok with not worrying so much how everybody may see these things. That confidence is a good look, despite all the rest. And the songs always win.