A must read article: An Open Letter To U2: What Happened To Your Relevance?

[LuckyNumber7]

I'm sure Bono and the band would love to read the maturity around bringing up "Bono's mum" from a supposed fan.

Sounds to me like someone is ungrateful and can't accept that U2 peaked and couldn't set a bigger precedence for aging rockers.

I'm grateful for everything they've done. I do wish they stopped caring about being relevant about ten years ago, but I won't fault them for not knowing how to move on from a feeling.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I think their legacy can only be hurt in the eye of a beholder that's already prone to seeing the band in a negative light. To me, their legacy is that they're the band that made Boy, October, War, Unforgettable Fire, Joshua Tree, Rattle And Hum, Achtung Baby, Zooropa, and Pop. Nothing they do in their later years, good or bad, can take that away from them. That's their legacy. It's in stone. I think what they're doing now can only hurt their legacy in the eyes of people who want their legacy to be hurt.

I get what you're saying and in some ways I agree... nothing can take that past away, and you saw it in full force in the JT30 tour.

But I think it's also obvious that the general public doesn't want them to be all up in everyone's faces anymore, and their refusal to fade quietly from the spotlight is hurting their ability to be respected by younger generations the same way many of the other older acts are.

I don't even think it's the music... They could release Innocence and Experience exactly as is, but without the in your face "look at us, love us" marketing approach and they would have been much more widely accepted.

 

[Nick66]

I've always been someone who thought that U2's legacy was cemented...that the best of what they did was so strong that their place in rock history was secure, and nothing could harm that. I've said as much many times here.

And to a certain extent, that's true. Anytime the music world discusses the biggest bands of all time, U2 will be right in the mix. They'll eventually get every honour that can be conferred upon a band, that they haven't already gotten. Anytime U2 does anything it will always been treated as an "event". The establishment more or less loves U2.

But in terms of their legacy among the public...now I'm not so sure. I tend to think the ambivalence and sometimes outright disdain that young people feel towards the band is in fact hurting their legacy. Kids will wear Stones or Who or Bowie or Zeppelin shirts and it will be cool (even if they don't actually listen to the music). From what I've seen that's not the case with U2 at all, and if anything being into U2 isn't regarded as cool at all. And the way a lot of people feel about Bono frankly doesn't help.

I get that this itself is a relatively recent phenomena, since in the 80's and 90's Bowie, the Stones, et. al. were considered dinosaur bands and not hip at all. But even among U2's contemporaries, REM and Bruce are cool in a way U2 just isn't. Is their music, at its best, better than U2's at their best? I'd say not. Yet they're cool and U2 isn't. So the question is, will U2's time come back around? Will they ever be "cool" again?

I don't know the answer to that question, except to say that it's not dependent on any record or single they put out. We're past their current music ever being hip again. But if it's ever going to happen they have to disappear for a while....i.e....how can we love you if you won't go away?

 

[DaveC]

i'm sure the nostalgia cycle will make liking u2 hip again in time - i think the main reason why we haven't seen that yet with them whereas bands like hall & oates have gone from being lame and uncool dad-rock to being on t-shirts and cited as influences by major artists is because their period of mainstream relevance ended 30+ years ago. if u2 ended after rattle & hum we'd probably be seeing all kinds of hipsters wearing joshua tree t-shirts these days and not their parents. but they've gone on as a mainstream force for another 20 years or so after that time. they've only been out of that spot now arguably for less than 10 years. once the nostalgia cycle rolls back around and we get the kind of teenage generation that listens to their parents & grandparents music to notice those old u2 cd's on the rack (like i did with pink floyd and led zeppelin and the stones) and those vintage retro tour t-shirts in the drawer, the hip kids will appreciate them and you'll see the culture respecting them again i suspect. just give it another 5-10 years.

the band repeatedly trying to manufacture that kind of force and respect though is only having the opposite effect and delaying the time when that would naturally happen.

 

[Nick66]

if u2 ended after rattle & hum we'd probably be seeing all kinds of hipsters wearing joshua tree t-shirts these days and not their parents.

I agree with this. Though I'd perhaps extend it to Achtung Baby.

If they'd ended after Achtung Baby, they'd be mythic....imagine what U2 would have done if they'd continued after that dramatic change people would wonder with awe.

 

[lazarus]

I think Dave made a very astute observation and prediction. But the latter would seem to only apply if the band actually hangs it up soon.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Dave's final point is my whole argument, just less rambly and more sensical.

 

[Gzusfrk]

I guess the part that frustrates me the most is this insatiable desire to be "current" and to be The Beatles. " The Beatles did tjis, The Beatles did that, John Lennon said this". They are NOT or ever will be The Beatles. The part they have forgotten tjough, is that The Beatles could NEVER be U2.

JT, AB, and portions of other albums are right up there with anything The Beatles ever did.

Up until Pop, yes they were influenced by current music and trends, but they weren't trying to CHANGE their DNA. They incorporated their influences into what U2 was.

Nowadays, it's like if they can't be The Beatles or One Republic, they will just have Tedder write them chunks of songs, or have their producers take their bits and pieces and "make" songs out of them. At least that's what it sounds like hearing Bono and The Edge interviewed. I mean, SOI and SOE are good albums, but sound a bit manufactured, or made to a set of directions. Hard to put my finger on it.

 

[The_acrobat]

The number of people who don't like U2 because of Bono or because of their social stances or their tax thing or whatever is grossly overstated.

The vast majority of people who have issues with these things didn't like U2 to begin with.

Their chasing of relevance long past their expiration date has made them appear lame to a younger generation, which has hurt their legacy.

But the olds still love this band, more than they hate them. By a lot.

This pretty much ends 90% of the debating that goes on here. Most people I know enjoy U2's hits, even though they kinda think Bono seems a little ridiculous. I do know a few people who truly hated U2 after the Apple thing, but they were never fans anyway and never were going to be. The olds still love this band indeed, and they're the ones who can afford to pay the absurd prices U2 are asking for anyway.

There's still something special about U2 that sets them apart from other big bands of the 80's. You still have Journey, Foreigner, Def Leppard, Styx, REO Speedwagon, Cheap Trick etc all teaming up year after year, because none of them can fill an arena on their own. REM were basically forced to retire, because their options were to go the same route as those other bands, or start touring the casino circuit. U2 meant a lot to a lot of people, and they still do. The fact that U2 were packing stadiums all over the US last year by playing a 30 year old album proves it.

Also, as far as current relevance goes, I think SOE did as well as it possibly could have, considering the band's age and the current music scene, or lack thereof. If they released "Vertigo" now, it would've performed roughly the same as "Best Thing" did. This is absolutely THE BEST they could've hoped for SOE to do. I hope they're okay with that. I hope this doesn't discourage them from making more albums.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Also, as far as current relevance goes, I think SOE did as well as it possibly could have, considering the band's age and the current music scene, or lack thereof. If they released "Vertigo" now, it would've performed roughly the same as "Best Thing" did. This is absolutely THE BEST they could've hoped for SOE to do. I hope they're okay with that. I hope this doesn't discourage them from making more albums.

And that's the biggest question, isn't it? Will they be okay putting out new music where the release cycle isn't an event. Sure, they'll still get to play the late night circuit, SNL, etc. But the only people who will truly care is their base. Will the U2 who always pushed to be the biggest band in the world be okay with merely being a former biggest band in the world?

 

[Mac_Fly]

the band repeatedly trying to manufacture that kind of force and respect though is only having the opposite effect and delaying the time when that would naturally happen.

It may very well be delaying the time it would "naturally" happen as you put it (who knows for sure that it will ever happen?) but . . . . should any of us care?

I for one am happy (understatement) that the band has continued on past AB.

Since that time they've given me: Zooropa (Zooropa), Mofo (POP), Beautiful Day (ATYCLB), Vertigo (HTDAAB), Breathe (NLOTH), Sleep Like A Baby Tonight (SOI).

Not to mention a whole lot of other songs in that span (haven't found my gem on SOE yet, but give it time).

I could give a rat's ass what some 13 year old is wearing on his/her t-shirt 50 years down the road when I'm dead and buried.

I hope U2 stays interested and hungry and gives us more and more.

 

[lazarus]

Also, as far as current relevance goes, I think SOE did as well as it possibly could have, considering the band's age and the current music scene, or lack thereof. If they released "Vertigo" now, it would've performed roughly the same as "Best Thing" did. This is absolutely THE BEST they could've hoped for SOE to do. I hope they're okay with that. I hope this doesn't discourage them from making more albums.

Sorry but I have to disagree. Is the flipside of this that Best Thing would have done as well as Vertigo had it been released in 2004 as the lead single?

You can't tell me that TBT is as successful a pop-rock confection as Vertigo. No fucking way.

I mean, assuming U2 would still be touring in 10 years, I don't see TBT popping up on future setlists the way Vertigo still does.

And I disagree with the larger point that SOE did as well as it was going to. The whole "single" release strategy was really messy and seemed to have no sense or goal behind it aside from throwing a bunch of shit at the wall and hoping something stuck.

Now we can argue that the PR disaster that was SOI put them behind the 8-ball, or in a place they were always going to have a hard time bouncing back from no matter what they did with SOE. Who knows if the JT tour even succeeded in that regard, giving them enough of a positive buffer before releasing new music again. But even if that's true, I think they would have had more success with a legit lead single release of The Blackout and a politically-charged video to go with it. Or a simple band-in-the-studio video for The Little Things. Or that animated video approach for Red Flag Day. I think all of those options would have carried more weight than the fake-out of The Blackout, then the under-promoted TBT, and the American Soul/Get Out combo.

 

[Iggy Fizz]

Yeah agreed. TBT sucks. Should be called The Worst Thing.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Best Thing would have done well in 2004, but not nearly as well as Vertigo did.

Vertigo, if released today, wouldn't make a dent.

 

[Mac_Fly]

I think they would have had more success with a legit lead single release of The Blackout and a politically-charged video to go with it. Or a simple band-in-the-studio video for The Little Things.

Either move would probably have been better.

Still not sure they had a real barn burner on this release though.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

I think Little Things is a U2 classic.

It would have gotten some decent play on adult alternative. That's it.

 

[Mac_Fly]

Will the U2 who always pushed to be the biggest band in the world be okay with merely being a former biggest band in the world?

Nothing in their history would indicate that they would ever be ok with that.

That same drive to be the biggest is what got them to make an AB, after the Rattle & Hum crash and burn (talking film here mostly -- let's not forget that backlash), drove them to make ATYCLB after the POP flop. They still have the drive, it just hasn't worked out the same way, yet.

Maybe they could settle into Rush territory, keep churning out albums that sell moderately well, keep hitting the arenas every other year and be ok with that.

Well, maybe they're already there . . .

 

[Muad'zin]

I think they've done as well as they've could. 99.99% of all successful bands burn themselves out within a decade. Everybody mentions the Beatles, but within a decade they split up, never to reunite again (for obvious reasons), I can't remember the last time the Rolling Stones were still relevant, nor Bruce Springsteen. Or a Metallica. The musical zeitgeist has also changed. During AB adding electronic music made sense as it was a new thing for a rock band. Nowadays rockbands are going the way of the dinosaurs. The war has been waged, the battles have been lost, rock music has ceased to be mainstream and will be relegated to niche status, just like jazz. Despacito, not Vertigo, is the way of the future.

Also U2 is no exception to everyone. At some point you have got to accept that you're no longer that young world conquering teenage buck anymore, but that an old fat balding dude is staring back at you in the mirror. Which leaves you the choice to either age with grace, or look ridiculous as you desperately try to cling on to your youth that vanished decades ago. I'd rather have U2 make albums that are interesting to themselves and which may or may not be interesting to us, then desperately try to appeal to the kids. Who aren't even listening to rock any more. It's not like U2 needs the money any more. Although I can understand that they understand that a lot of people's livelihood depends on them still being the world's biggest band. Besides U2 the band there is also U2 the multinational, that employs a lot of people. And whose jobs depend on sales.

As for Bono, I firmly believe that his preaching has pissed a lot of people off. And by extension of U2 as well. We only have to look at that South Park episode. There are many politically active artists out there, and I think that of the lot Bono has probably been the most successful. But it has come at the price of intense dislike. His tax shenanigans hasn't exactly helped either. Would it be better for U2's legacy if he were to step back and focus on the music instead? Probably, but I don't think its in his character to do so. I suspect when forced to chose he'd rather spend the rest of his life as an activist rather then as an artist. Which is probably why the rest of the band has always let him do what he wanted to do in that regard, even though the endless speeches during shows were insufferable.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

South Park has made fun of just about every person on Earth. That they happened to dedicate an episode that featured Bono as a literal piece of feces is not the moment that people turned on him.

 

[lazarus]

I think Little Things is a U2 classic.

It would have gotten some decent play on adult alternative. That's it.

In terms of converting young people, I agree, it wouldn't have made a dent. But the problem with TBT, American Soul, Get Out is that they probably aren't making much of a dent with the olds, either.

Imagine them performing a no-frills Little Things at the Grammys instead of that gimmicky bullshit. At least the audience there would have been reminded of the band at full classic power, and the viewing audience could take it or leave it but at least they wouldn't have anything to take potshots at. You combine that with the brief Kendrick stage appearance and they cover the "cool artists think we're cool" base as well.

 

[LuckyNumber7]

South Park has made fun of just about every person on Earth. That they happened to dedicate an episode that featured Bono as a literal piece of feces is not the moment that people turned on him.

I would say it had a lasting impact on people of my age group - and I mean that in a narrow sense, plus or minus two years.

But I would say the SOI thing is what really made people hate them. People have forgotten about Bono and being a piece of poop.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

In terms of converting young people, I agree, it wouldn't have made a dent. But the problem with TBT, American Soul, Get Out is that they probably aren't making much of a dent with the olds, either.

Imagine them performing a no-frills Little Things at the Grammys instead of that gimmicky bullshit. At least the audience there would have been reminded of the band at full classic power, and the viewing audience could take it or leave it but at least they wouldn't have anything to take potshots at. You combine that with the brief Kendrick stage appearance and they cover the "cool artists think we're cool" base as well.

Oh I'm with you... Little Things was the choice.

I'm speaking more towards those who think U2 still have a shot to be relevant on a larger stage than just with the olds (U2 are among those lost souls)

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

The most common thing written about U2 on Twitter whenever they pop their heads up into popular culture, be it this March Madness thing or at the Grammys or wherever, is the iTunes thing. And it's not close.

Not the taxes, not the sunglasses, not Africa or charity work in general, certainly not the girly comment, and not the biddy.

Having their album pushed into people's iTunes account did more to destroy their legacy with people in a certain age bracket than everything else combined.

Whoever's fault it was... it was an awful marketing move.

 

[Montrose]

I agree with this. Though I'd perhaps extend it to Achtung Baby.

If they'd ended after Achtung Baby, they'd be mythic....imagine what U2 would have done if they'd continued after that dramatic change people would wonder with awe.

I'd extend that to Zooropa.

That would have been their mic-drop album in that it would have seemed intentionally teasing, a step further into the experimental deep end, but leaving a huge question-mark at the end. Could they have pushed the envelope further? Could they have ever gone back to 'classic' 80's U2? It was their release during ZooTV, and I suppose just ending after that tour would have been a statement equivalent to what you said.

Ending after Achtung would have a hard-cut in a movie, Sopranos style. A Zooropa exit would have been more a mysterious fade to black, more like the spinning top at the end of Inception. Either way, I like your point.

 

[Mac_Fly]

I'd extend that to Zooropa.

That would have been their mic-drop album in that it would have seemed intentionally teasing, a step further into the experimental deep end, but leaving a huge question-mark at the end. Could they have pushed the envelope further? Could they have ever gone back to 'classic' 80's U2?

Ending after Achtung would have a hard-cut in a movie, Sopranos style. A Zooropa exit would have been more a mysterious fade to black, more like the spinning top at the end of Inception.

That would have been interesting, had Zooropa been the last of it, but I'm glad they didn't stop there. I don't think the doomsday scenario described on so many posts really mean a whole lot.

The only thing happening significant to their career is that U2 didn't release a monster album and there is an over saturation given that JT30 just wrapped up last year.

I mean, for JT 30 last year people got to hear the early 80's hits, the entire JT album, then the AB hits, then BD and Vertigo. Who needs to seem them immediately again this year? Only the diehards like me.

And one last thing . . . ending of Sopranos -- Tony was whacked. Ending of Inception -- Dom was trapped in limbo.

 

[lazarus]

Oh I'm with you... Little Things was the choice.

I'm speaking more towards those who think U2 still have a shot to be relevant on a larger stage than just with the olds (U2 are among those lost souls)

Well, if they really did want to aim for the younger set, I think The Blackout was “modern” enough to make a stab at it. Had they paired it with a cooler video (as I suggested before, one of the animated approaches they used for the other songs), it could have made more of a dent. Instead of the “cool video for generic dad rock song” reaction the other ones received.

And one last thing . . . ending of Sopranos -- Tony was whacked. Ending of Inception -- Dom was trapped in limbo.

Oh god, not one of these Inception conspiracy theory people. You hear the top wobble before the film cuts to black, the sound is NOT uniform as it would be if it failed the reality test. Dom escaped and is legitimately back with his children, Nolan was just being cheeky to fuck with people.

 

[Headache in a Suitcase]

Well, if they really did want to aim for the younger set, I think The Blackout was “modern” enough to make a stab at it. Had they paired it with a cooler video (as I suggested before, one of the animated approaches they used for the other songs), it could have made more of a dent. Instead of the “cool video for generic dad rock song” reaction the other ones received.



Oh god, not one of these Inception conspiracy theory people. You hear the top wobble before the film cuts to black, the sound is NOT uniform as it would be if it failed the reality test. Dom escaped and is legitimately back with his children, Nolan was just being cheeky to fuck with people.

As much as I'd like to see them make one more dent, there's no chance in hell they were making a dent just one album after the iTunes debacle.

They need some years removed from that before they ever have a chance of making a mainstream dent again, and even then, it's highly unlikely.

 

[DaveC]

when's the last time a band their age and with their stature has ever "made a dent" at this point in their careers?

the closest thing i can think of is mayyyyybe "anybody seen my baby" which was played a lot here in canada at the time (and not at all anymore) but i feel like that song was played as much as it was based more off the fact that it was just a new rolling stones tune rather than anything to do with the song itself, which was a carbon copy of "constant craving" anyways. pretty much everyone forgot about it as well as soon as the radio stopped playing it so i don't know if that really counts for much of anything.

maybe "believe" by cher?

is there any precedent at all for what they're trying to achieve? i honestly don't know if it's even possible.

 

[Iggy Fizz]

and with lyrics like 'I'm the kind of trouble that you enjoy'.... even a few years away won't help this 'punk inspired' band.

 

[namkcuR]

when's the last time a band their age and with their stature has ever "made a dent" at this point in their careers?

the closest thing i can think of is mayyyyybe "anybody seen my baby" which was played a lot here in canada at the time (and not at all anymore) but i feel like that song was played as much as it was based more off the fact that it was just a new rolling stones tune rather than anything to do with the song itself, which was a carbon copy of "constant craving" anyways. pretty much everyone forgot about it as well as soon as the radio stopped playing it so i don't know if that really counts for much of anything.

maybe "believe" by cher?

is there any precedent at all for what they're trying to achieve? i honestly don't know if it's even possible.

It's all a matter of degrees. I know nobody here likes RHCP, but their singles "Dark Necessities" and "Go Robot" saw some chart action in 2016. They weren't huge, but they did better than any of U2's SOE singles, and RHCP has only been around a few years less than U2.