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

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.

The Slow Loris

War Child
Joined
Mar 16, 2001
Messages
785
Location
Slowloris-ville, Western Indonesia
https://scholarsandrogues.com/2017/12/17/an-open-letter-to-u2-what-happened-to-your-relevance/amp/

An open letter to U2: what happened to your relevance?

Once U2 was the greatest band alive, but these days their attempts to stay current have more to do with following trends than connecting with the people.

U2 is my favorite band of all time, and I think there’s a very compelling argument to be made that they were the best band on the face of the Earth from 1983 to 1993, a decade-long era that began with the release of War and closed with Zooropa. In between they gave us Under a Blood Red Sky, The Unforgettable Fire, The Joshua Tree, Rattle & Hum and Achtung, Baby. If you want to roll back a little earlier and include Boy, 2 Sides Live and October I won’t argue with you. Not one little bit.

Other than The Beatles, I don’t think any band in history has ever had a better decade, and I’m not sure even the Fabs themselves were that much greater.

It hurts to say it, but the truth is U2 hasn’t been great since. Zooropa was what I have come to think of as an ambitious thought experiment, and Pop! was an absolutely brilliant intellectual (and breathtakingly ironic and bewilderingly double-reverse postmodern) treatise on the commodification of art, but not even Bono’s mum would rank them in the same category as Unforgettable Fire and War (both of which, in my estimation, were even greater than Joshua Tree).

Over the last 34 years or so the band has given us some very good work, and I’m liking the new release, Songs of Experience. But it isn’t great. More to the point, it, like everything else U2 has produced since Achtung, Baby, isn’t especially relevant. Many of the band’s old fans – people like me, largely early Gen Xers – are still tagging along, but the latest album won’t earn them a new generation of followers.

We’ve seen this sort of thing any number of times over the course of Rock’s 60-year history: one day a band or an artist is the biggest thing in the world, and the next day the world has moved on. People age, tastes change, times change, fashions change, the industry (which has never cared about much beyond the next easy buck) gets bored and dashes off in search of the next big thing, and so on. Then there was that time Nirvana came along and rendered a whole generation of acts obsolete. Kinda like The Beatles did 30 years before.

A lot of times the artist being shoved aside still has a lot to say, and if you pay attention you notice that periodically you’ll hear something from a band you forgot 20 years ago and, son of a bitch, it’s awesome. In other words, just because you stop paying attention doesn’t mean the artistic fires have gone out.

But is that true of U2? Are they still as great as they ever were? Is it the rest of the world’s fault they matter less now, or is it theirs?

Bono and Edge and Larry and Adam didn’t get dumb overnight. They didn’t forget how to play. They didn’t forget how to craft a tune. But all of a sudden, back in the mid-’90s, things got different. Why?

In a recent Rolling Stone interview, Edge talks about the band’s process, and he does so in a way that emphasizes just how deeply they think about what they’re doing and how well they understand the art of making a record. But there’s this passage:

But I think we’re also wary of the fact that that sound is associated with 20, 30 years ago. We need to make sure, as we always have done, that we are part of a current conversation that’s going in music culture in terms of production, songwriting, melodic structure, all the things that keep the culture moving forward.

What we don’t want to be is caught in what I describe as a cultural oxbow lake where others are moving forward and you’re still faithfully doing what you’ve always done, but now you’re anachronistic and part of a historical form rather than what’s actually pushing the boundaries forward, the flow of where it’s going. We’ll usually try to have our cake and eat it. We want it both: the hallmarks of the classic band, which is becoming more and more rare, but we also don’t want to be perceived, and we don’t want to be, a veteran act out of touch with the culture. [emphasis added]
In other words, U2 dedicates a good bit of energy to listening to other bands of the moment and to the task of staying … well, relevant. They don’t want to get ossified. They don’t want to become a tired old radio warhorse, relegated to the county fair circuit and playing ’80s revival tours every summer. They’ve seen it happen and they have no interest in becoming a nostalgia act.

This is all very smart. On paper. The thing is, I can’t help being cognizant of the fact that the band’s lessening importance has more or less coincided with how hard they’ve worked to remain current. They started listening to more Electronica in the ’90s, for instance, and you can hear, from time to time, how they’ve woven more contemporary influences into their music.

I don’t recall once, ever, during that golden 1983-93 era, thinking U2 was spending an ounce of energy on keeping their sound contemporary. On the contrary, some other bands made a few bucks sounding like them – The Alarm comes to mind, Big Country, maybe, and later on the abomination of Coldplay. AllMusic lists over 40 famous bands as followers, including the likes of Oasis, Radiohead and The Arcade Fire.

In short, it feels like the band that became the greatest in the world by leading has fallen off its perch thanks, in part, to a decision to follow. In 2017 they worry about “the things that keep the culture moving forward.” In 1983 they were the thing that kept the culture moving forward.

And what is relevance, anyway? Rock is built on an amalgamation of factors. The sound. The look and style. Charisma. Chops. Timing. Along these criteria and more, the artist connects with the audience. The music speaks to the lived experience of its listeners. They listen and they think hey, this song could have been written about me. Bands become great when they click with the time. You’d never have heard of The Sex Pistols had they come along in the late ’80s. San Francisco in the mid-’60s seems the only possible time The Grateful Dead could have happened. And thanks to the sewer that is the music and radio industry, if John, Paul, George and Ringo started a band in 2017 they’d be Army Navy.

But 1980s U2 did connect. The sound was groundbreaking, and they had a message. Passionate and earnest in the extreme, they crawled up in the face of the political concerns of the day – in Ireland and beyond. They weren’t afraid of the IRA and they certainly weren’t afraid of Evan Mecham. The people needed a voice and U2 was that voice.

The rise of facism and religious hatred around the world means we need that kind of voice today more than ever. But U2 isn’t it. And perhaps they can’t be anymore.

I will continue to love U2 for all they have been, and I imagine I’ll continue to like the albums they release. But I’m not sure I have any hope they’ll ever blow the lid off again. I doubt there will be another War, or another Unforgettable Fire, or a Joshua Tree or an Achtung, Baby. They changed the world once, and I don’t expect they will again. But hey, how many bands ever do it even once, right?

And how much different might my thinking be right now had they called it quits, as did REM, maybe after Achtung, Baby? It would have driven me mad, no doubt, but I’d never have any memories of U2 as anything but the greatest band in the world.

Still, I always hope they’ll try. I’ll always wonder what might happen if they piled into a panel van, packed only the equipment that would fit in a trailer, and spent a year doing unannounced gigs in small clubs across Donald’s Trump’s America. Maybe call it the “Listening Tour.”

And along the way, maybe they’d write a few songs and rediscover the truth that relevance is about connecting with the lives people lead and not staying in touch with the sound of the flavor of the day.
 
Last edited:
"In short, it feels like the band that became the greatest in the world by leading has fallen off its perch thanks, in part, to a decision to follow"

This is similar to my 2nd favourite band, Kraftwerk who with Techno Pop started to become followers of trends rather than trendsetters.
 
Still, I always hope they’ll try. I’ll always wonder what might happen if they piled into a panel van, packed only the equipment that would fit in a trailer, and spent a year doing unannounced gigs in small clubs across Donald’s Trump’s America. Maybe call it the “Listening Tour.”

this sounds like a great idea. where do I sign up.
 
There are a few things wrong

1. This isn't must read
2. Of course a band 40 years in isn't going to get a lot of new fans
3. The 2000s work, like it or not, made a ton of new fans for this band well past the natural expiration date of rock bands

The article should say that they've hurt their legacy by attempting to stay relevant when it was clear that those days are now over. That would be must read.

This just sucks.
 
There are a few things wrong

1. This isn't must read
2. Of course a band 40 years in isn't going to get a lot of new fans
3. The 2000s work, like it or not, made a ton of new fans for this band well past the natural expiration date of rock bands

The article should say that they've hurt their legacy by attempting to stay relevant when it was clear that those days are now over. That would be must read.

This just sucks.

Exactly.

U2 has accomplished more, with more longevity, than just about anyone. At a minimum, they're in elite company. The expectations people have of this band, and this stage of their career, are just whacked.
 
Last edited:
Exactly.

U2 has accomplished more, with more longevity, than just about anyone. At a minimum, they're in elite company. The expectations people have of this band, and this stage of their career, are just whacked.

There are a few solid points that have been made hundreds of times over on this forum before, but the article misses the 6,000 pound elephant in the room - Bono's outspoken political activism, love it or hate it, and absolutely mind-boggling selections of first singles from NLOTH to now have gone as far as anything in sinking this band's relevance. Yes, it sucks that they are perceived as hangers on to trends proffered by underwhelming modern acts like Chainsmokers and OneRepublic when they used to emulate Joy Division, Siouxsie and the Banshees, and The Clash - all of whom were daring and bold for their day. But honestly they were going for hints of familiar aesthetics on JT and AB in a way, whether channeling Dylan or echoing some of the Madchester vibe. Hell, working with Eno, while it is a bit of a trope for a rock act now, was a stab at deeper, continued relevance. It's never not been somewhat about that for them.

Bono is caustic to many people who casually follow this band and downright insufferable to people on the fence, especially with news stories like last week that make him seem like a hypocrite. I wonder myself when that changed, and part of me thinks it began when they actually backed individual politicians, many very polarizing (working with Bush, Obama, Clinton, lionizing Aung San Su Kyi, who is now reviled by most everyone) vice more universal or underpublicized
causes (the siege of Sarajevo, Stop Sellafield, Jubilee 2000). Whatever the case, the band would be best served to channel cause through music, keep it simple, dare to innovate, and push to where they feel excited again, a place I think they generally soar in.
 
Last edited:
Bono is caustic to many people who casually follow this band and downright insufferable to people on the fence, especially with news stories like last week that make him seem like a hypocrite. I wonder myself when that changed, and part of me thinks it began when they actually backed individual politicians, many very polarizing (working with Bush, Obama, Clinton, lionizing Aung San Su Kyi, who is now reviled by most everyone) vice more universal or underpublicized
causes (the siege of Sarajevo, Stop Sellafield, Jubilee 2000). Whatever the case, the band would be best served to channel cause through music, keep it simple, dare to innovate, and push to where they feel excited again, a place I think they generally soar in.


I don’t think they’ve ever actually “backed” a candidate, and when you talk about under-publicized causes, you have to consider one thing, the entire media landscape has changed. Your entire view of U2(or any other band from that era) if there was 24 hr coverage and social media, may be completely different for better or worst.
 
U2 stayed relevant for so much longer than one should ever expect of a band. They reinvented themselves at least twice (R&H->Achtung Baby, and then Pop->ATYCLB) after what could've been death knells to their relevancy had they screwed up. Their new album, released in their 42nd year, is a modest success by universal standards and astonishing if you look at it in context.

I think the most telling thing for me when it comes to how I feel about it is that, sure they're not super relevant right now and haven't been for a while (feels like the end of the 360 tour was when it truly started feeling that way), but I just can't completely rule out that something they'll do in the future will feel relevant in a positive way again.
 
No_Other than The Beatles, I don’t think any band in history has ever had a better decade, and I’m not sure even the Fabs themselves were that much greater.

Yeah, no.

At the least mention great 60's bands like Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd or Rolling Stones who have achieved more.
 
The expectations people have of this band, and this stage of their career, are just whacked.

More or less this. On top of that, there's never going to be one thing that makes every single fan happy anymore. At the end of the day, you either like the new songs or you don't. It's really as simple as that.
 
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.
 
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.

:up:
 
Yeah, I'm not reading that. Someone always thinks they have it all figured out and can solve U2’s problems for them. Just enjoy the music (or don’t) and stop whining already; I don’t have any patience for this kind of thing anymore.
 
You know, here's the thing . . .

After the POP flop, Larry says to Bono "why don't we make a album of pop songs instead of just calling the album 'POP'?"

So then they come out with ATYCLB and it's well received and gets the band off and running again. But the "pop" songs worked.

But with HTDAAB . . . . I started hearing the absurd complaint concerning how they sounded like "U2" . . that it was nothing new. Luckily, they had Vertigo to still command attention.

Then they thought they could have another AB moment with NLOTH. Didn't work.

So just like after POP, they come back with a couple of POP albums. Not working either.

My point?

No one was complaining when they went pop with ATYCLB. But now we get the "they're copying the people who are copying them" chorus. No one complained when they incorporated and "borrowed" from other current trends when they made AB. But now it's a bad thing for them to keep their ears open to what people might want, and what direction they might like to explore.

Enough already. The last three albums have been very good, the only problem is no big single to lead the charge.
 
Just be happy that all 4 founding members are around, making music, and touring. So many bands and fans of those bands would kill just to have that. Try to ignore the fact they are still trying to being relevant. I’m sure when I’m in my 60’s I’ll yearn to be in my 30’s again.
 
No_Other than The Beatles, I don’t think any band in history has ever had a better decade, and I’m not sure even the Fabs themselves were that much greater.

Yeah, no.

At the least mention great 60's bands like Led Zeppelin or Pink Floyd or Rolling Stones who have achieved more.

Bowie too. REM were also better for longer. U2 never had a sustained stretch of greatness. War, TUF and TJT were all great, as were Achtung and Zooropa...but then there's Rattle and Hum, a lump of shit sitting right in the middle of the plate. The Stones, Beatles, Dylan, Kinks, Floyd, Rush, Zep, Bowie, REM, Byrds, Beatles (and others) all had runs of 5+ great albums (and, in the case of the 60s artists, a bunch of singles and b-sides).
 
No one was complaining when they went pop with ATYCLB. But now we get the "they're copying the people who are copying them" chorus. No one complained when they incorporated and "borrowed" from other current trends when they made AB. But now it's a bad thing for them to keep their ears open to what people might want, and what direction they might like to explore.

1. ATYCLB was a refreshing change of pace and would have been an excellent on-off rather than a template for the next 17 years

2. The difference between what they borrowed from in the 80s & 90s vs. 00s & 10s is that they had better taste then and they were weren't borrowing from the pop charts to blend in with the crowd and get hits. Borrowing from Happy Mondays and NIN is a bit different from trying to fit in with One Republic
 
The difference between what they borrowed from in the 80s & 90s vs. 00s & 10s is that they had better taste then and they were weren't borrowing from the pop charts to blend in with the crowd and get hits. Borrowing from Happy Mondays and NIN is a bit different from trying to fit in with One Republic

Better taste?

Rather subjective isn't it?

And since when has U2 not been preoccupied with having hits?

Or most recording artists for that matter.
 
Bowie too. REM were also better for longer. U2 never had a sustained stretch of greatness. War, TUF and TJT were all great, as were Achtung and Zooropa...but then there's Rattle and Hum, a lump of shit sitting right in the middle of the plate. The Stones, Beatles, Dylan, Kinks, Floyd, Rush, Zep, Bowie, REM, Byrds, Beatles (and others) all had runs of 5+ great albums (and, in the case of the 60s artists, a bunch of singles and b-sides).

You're doing a lot of confusing your opinion with objective fact here.

I am not sure how many would agree with your take on Rattle and hum. Sure, it was an awkward, over the top era that produced a backlash as time went on. The album itself was a massive seller that included such "lumps of shit" as : Desire, Angel of harlem, Hawkmoon, God Part 2, All I want is you, love rescue me and Heartland.
 
I skimmed and all I really got out of it was "[emphasis added]" and "Nirvana" so I'm probably repeating shit that's posted here every day, but I feel like Zoo TV has forged some kinda revitilised relevance over the past couple of years in a bunch of ways. I think about the words that make up the EYKIW acronym a lot.
 
Doesn't a band of their age deserve abit of credit for always trying to move with the times and stay relevant? They could easily just tour the hits now and again but they do try to be that band again. Whether their achieving that is a totally different question. Personally I think their times been and gone, I hate to sound ageist but a band nearly 60 aren't going to be that cool hip band that they were in 2000/91/87 and 83. It's just not gonna happen with the kiddies.

The whole apple thing I think was designed to reinvent themselves to a younger generation, but all that did was make the younger generation aware of u2 it didn't actually create new fans ( from what I see anyway )

Would the music be much different if they weren't trying to be relevant? Which is up for debate I suppose, the path they went down with passengers and pop was probably scrapped because it wasn't well received by the masses and that's why they went back to being safe with atyclb. To appeal to the masses. I have no problem with that as that's what got me into the band and 2000-2005 is arguably the bands biggest years.

Nloth was the album that killed off the mainstream chart topping u2. It wasn't all down to nloth though,their age, hatred for Bono,generations moving on,get on your boots and rock music being a dying format contributed.

I've got no complaints though ive loved both albums since and the tours that have followed. Be devastated when theve gone so enjoy the road ahead.
 
Doesn't a band of their age deserve abit of credit for always trying to move with the times and stay relevant? They could easily just tour the hits now and again but they do try to be that band again. Whether their achieving that is a totally different question. Personally I think their times been and gone, I hate to sound ageist but a band nearly 60 aren't going to be that cool hip band that they were in 2000/91/87 and 83. It's just not gonna happen with the kiddies.

The whole apple thing I think was designed to reinvent themselves to a younger generation, but all that did was make the younger generation aware of u2 it didn't actually create new fans ( from what I see anyway )

Would the music be much different if they weren't trying to be relevant? Which is up for debate I suppose, the path they went down with passengers and pop was probably scrapped because it wasn't well received by the masses and that's why they went back to being safe with atyclb. To appeal to the masses. I have no problem with that as that's what got me into the band and 2000-2005 is arguably the bands biggest years.

Nloth was the album that killed off the mainstream chart topping u2. It wasn't all down to nloth though,their age, hatred for Bono,generations moving on,get on your boots and rock music being a dying format contributed.

I've got no complaints though ive loved both albums since and the tours that have followed. Be devastated when theve gone so enjoy the road ahead.

I agree with a lot of this, although I never quite got on board with the idea that the "kiddies/kids" argument has merit. There's a difference between trying to appeal to the under-20 crowd or just, in general, having "mainstream" appeal in general. If they really wanted to appeal to teens, the Timbaland and Miley Cyrus collaborations would have happened a long time ago. They never really tempted the rhythmic Top 40 crowd and I don't really expect them to now.

I see that same thing talked about on other forums for bands that has members over 40 years old or have 10+ albums in the bank. Most of the time, I just shrug and say something similar "When haven't they sought relevance? Or any band for that matter?" Claiming they were playing it "safe" when writing stuff is another thing I see too, and there's really no way of knowing that unless you're actually in the studio with them. But of course, we see and read the interviews because they're out there en masse for this band, we take it verbatim and then make our own assumptions on it.

I don't think they're process of writing things has changed that much over the years, personally. There might be a concentration on certain songs or whatever (like Edge seemed to hint at on NLOTH when he said maybe they should have just went in a general direction). But most of the time, you can't just make decisions on what direction to take and have it come out exactly that way. And even if you did, it'd probably sound more contrived than anything else they did. We haven't gotten to that point yet, as much as some would like to think a rock band would just pull out the ambient keyboards and play that sort of music for 12 songs on each album. You know, the "actual" music they want to make. :wink:

And after 14 or so albums and getting close to 60, and writing songs for most of that time... I respect that they're still out there still giving it a go.
 
Is U2 hurting their legacy by looking for "relevance"?
Has U2 always been about making "hits"?
Should U2 not worry about trying to climb the charts?
Should U2 get back to making "experimental" music?

These are questions Interference hasn't properly explored.

Discuss.
 
Last edited:
The article should say that they've hurt their legacy by attempting to stay relevant when it was clear that those days are now over. That would be must read.

I think a requirement of great performers is an awareness of your audience, but you may cheapen that connection when that awareness creeps into pandering or manipulation (for example, trying to manufacture a hit that's against your DNA). I think the last two albums have been great, but unfortunately the singles and marketing have been driven by this pandering so that may be this cycle's legacy.

What's wrong with creating what you think is right for the moment and then making a case for why it's relevant rather than trying to manufacture relevance for its own sake?

The great works will always exist and are what they are, but I suppose any negative period will make it take longer for their popular rediscovery.
 
Last edited:
You're doing a lot of confusing your opinion with objective fact here.

I am not sure how many would agree with your take on Rattle and hum. Sure, it was an awkward, over the top era that produced a backlash as time went on. The album itself was a massive seller that included such "lumps of shit" as : Desire, Angel of harlem, Hawkmoon, God Part 2, All I want is you, love rescue me and Heartland.

R&H has some great songs but it's a weak album. U2 had periods of greatnesa broken up by failures. The other artists I mentioned are all acknowledged as having long stretches of uninterrupted greatness.
 
R&H has some great songs but it's a weak album. U2 had periods of greatness broken up by failures. The other artists I mentioned are all acknowledged as having long stretches of uninterrupted greatness.

This is so subjective. U2 were massive and created a lot of great music with Rattle and Hum. Music that has stood the test of time and aged wonderfully.

By some of the criteria I've seen on this site, someone could argue that The Beatles were washed up in 1966. The news at the time was reporting it. There were nationwide protests to John's "bigger than Jesus" comment and people were burning Beatles albums. The bands second appearance at Shea stadium had some 11,000 unsold tickets...Yep, total burnouts. The Beatles had periods of greatness broken up by failures in the U.S. in 1966. :hmm:
 
You know, here's the thing . . .

After the POP flop, Larry says to Bono "why don't we make a album of pop songs instead of just calling the album 'POP'?"

So then they come out with ATYCLB and it's well received and gets the band off and running again. But the "pop" songs worked.

But with HTDAAB . . . . I started hearing the absurd complaint concerning how they sounded like "U2" . . that it was nothing new. Luckily, they had Vertigo to still command attention.

Then they thought they could have another AB moment with NLOTH. Didn't work.

So just like after POP, they come back with a couple of POP albums. Not working either.

My point?

No one was complaining when they went pop with ATYCLB. But now we get the "they're copying the people who are copying them" chorus. No one complained when they incorporated and "borrowed" from other current trends when they made AB. But now it's a bad thing for them to keep their ears open to what people might want, and what direction they might like to explore.

Enough already. The last three albums have been very good, the only problem is no big single to lead the charge.
No Line was probably their last chance to have a song that got major radio play, and they blew it.

And when you're a band as old as they are, once you blow it, you're not getting it back.

I think Little Things is a classic. But in no way so I think it would have been a major player on radio, other than adult formats if it was the first single - those days are over.
 
Is U2 hurting their legacy by looking for "relevance"?


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.

Has U2 always been about making "hits"?

Yes.

Should U2 not worry about trying to climb the charts?

Yes(they should not worry). Not anymore. It's probably futile at this point and it compromises the quality of their work more than ever before, imo.

Should U2 get back to making "experimental" music?

These are questions Interference hasn't properly explored.

Discuss.

Only if that's really what they want to do and they're really into it. I don't want them, or any artist I care about, to make work they're not really into. If they want to make another Zooropa great, if they want to make more straightforward stuff, great too, as long as it's good straightforward stuff like Kite or Raised By Wolves or Summer Of Love. They just need to stay away from desperate in-your-face attempts at pop-audience-friendly singles like American Soul or GOOYOW that sound like they were made in a factory.
 
Back
Top Bottom