BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
They might still be going strong in your world but their relevance is pretty much been knocked down to nostalgic acts to much of the rest of the world.
Bono: 'U2 album was too challenging'
- Thread starter DevilsShoes
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
They might still be going strong in your world but their relevance is pretty much been knocked down to nostalgic acts to much of the rest of the world.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
Um, then you're humming off key and off rhythm. I don't mean that in a rude way, it's just that as a musician I can't see how anyone can say this, they are completely different structures. Do you play anything?
ozeeko
Refugee
They might still be going strong in your world but their relevance is pretty much been knocked down to nostalgic acts to much of the rest of the world.
U2 might as well be a nostalglic act considering no one is talking about their recent "hits". I doubt any casual fans went to these concerts with a jones to hear Get On Your Boots. Or Window In The Skies. Or Original Of The Species. Or Magnificent.
Maybe Vertigo and Beautiful Day.
And their 80's and 90's hits.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
You honestly think U2 has survived this much during the 2000's because of just two songs? Sorry, doubt it. Just because you don't like U2's 2000 material it doesn't mean they haven't won over a huge group of new fans, just look around interference there are fans that admit they only know their 2000 material and that they are just now learning their 80's and 90's material, some like it some don't. But I think you might be a little out of the loop on this one.
ozeeko
Refugee
Well, i'll put it this way...
The only U2 songs i can recall actually hearing people talk about in public are Beautiful Day and Vertigo. And I'm not talking about actual U2 fans, I'm just saying people in general who say, "oh i love that Beautiful Day song" or "I actually like that Vertigo song". I haven't heard, well, anything POSITIVE about any of their new songs. I like GOYB more than Vertigo but I haven't heard a soul talk about it. I haven't heard any young person name U2 on their list of favorite bands. I'm talking about kids hear. I've asked my two younger sisters (18, 22) about U2 and they look at me like i have 6 heads. You know...that song GOYB...Crazy Tonight...Beautiful Day??? "Oh yea, Beautiful Day, i remember that one"..."With or Without You" "Yea I love that song. That's U2?"
Whenever i hear anything about U2 today its usually to the degree of "I hate fucking Bono, he's a fucking pompous asshole" To which i usually respond "he may be pompous, but Bono's no asshole". Just the other day a kid in brooklyn told me he saw Bono walking by Radio City and he shouted out "Bono you're a fucking queer!!" and the kid was applauded by everyone in the room for telling this story. BTW, I mentioned i liked U2 and everyone was like "what, really?" I'm not ashamed of U2 at all and not ashamed of telling people i like them, but I'm just telling you what i've come across and heard regarding the band in public. From really young kids, to older teens to people in their mid-20's.
I don't think there's any difference with U2 touring lately than when the Stones tour. For every new Stones tour there's always some young kid discovering classic rock for the first time, just as there's some young kid discovering U2 for the first time. But is this all because the new music is dominating the world or just because of the simple fact that hey the band is touring and boy do they put on a good show?
To go back to a previous convo, I don't think U2 or any band for that matter should ever cater to any audience. The only people U2 should be making music for is themselves. That's what true artists do.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
you know -- i understand that music is subjective, and there's no arguing over taste or whatever, but you can't let your personal opinion cloud the fact that Coldplay and KOL sell a fuck-ton of albums now. that's just a fact. also, smearing all kids as having shit taste because some 11 year olds like Miley for 2 years before they outgrow her really isn't fair. some of those kids will grow and mature and so will their musical tastes. a year ago, it was the Jonas Brothers. where are they now? where is Hanson now?
i didn't listen to the Joshua Tree when i was 9-10 years old. i was listening to Poison and Def Leppard and Guns 'N Roses.
so cut the kids some slack. and appreciate the fact that many kids today may well have different tastes than you do, but that doesn't mean that they're pathetic and awful.
and U2 doesn't just want to create music. when have they ever? they want to create an event, a moment. you don't do stadiums and you don't build "The Claw" if you just want to strum on a guitar and sing an introspective song about faith and doubt. that's now how U2 works. they crank it up to 11 and bellow about the grandest thoughts, the grandest hopes, the grandest themes. Bono's inner narrative must be astonishingly heroic, and he's lucky that he's got a band that can give space and sense and context and that his voice has such self-doubt that it all comes off as credible.
singer-songwriters they are not. musicians they are not. they do something else, they just use music to do it.
and if no one is listening, then why do it? i think that's where U2 comes down. it's not about money, it's about getting attention, headspace.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
i'm really not trying to start anything, because i respect your opinions, but i went to 2 shows and for whatever reason GOYB drove the crowd wild. they totally missed it on the record, but that song rules live.
also, though it's true that there hasn't been a song from NLOTH that's connected live, do you ever hear the casual fans talking about how great Pop and Zooropa were?
U2 are lucky in that they have a good baker's dozen of songs from three decades that people want to here.
most bands are lucky if they get 3-4.
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
If that's true Bob Dylan would still be playing in basements and around campfires. We like to tell ourselves this, but artist don't write music just for themselves. Radiohead didn't seek out a contract so that they could play for just themselves.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
and U2 didn't become a rock and roll godzilla in spite of themselves.
ozeeko
Refugee
I think you know what i mean. I meant they "write" music for themselves.
If that wasn't true, then Dylan would've never written Like A Rolling Stone, as that was considered heresy among the folk crowd, among his fanbase.
ozeeko
Refugee
It's not abou money, it's about attention?
Funny, i always thought it was about the music.
I wasn't shitting on young kids tastes, i just think it's silly for U2 to try to convert kids and act dissapointed when they fail. Because, just like you said, kids will eventually come around to appreciate it. Just like you did after your Def Leppard phase and just as i did after my Marky Mark phase. U2 shouldn't be desperately trying to win everyone.
That's what i mean when i say write music for yourself. Not to enjoy by yourself in private, but music that you get off on creating, which then will be released and who knows maybe some of it will stick, maybe all of it will. Who knows? But secondguessing doesn't always work out in the end!
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
i will agree that post-Pop, U2 has suffered from some extreme self-consciousness and caution. i think they've become better songwriters, their live shows continue to get better and better, and i think their albums are remarkably filler-free, and i think they work incredibly hard and there's so much effort and content on every album they've put out since Joshua Tree. but i do agree -- i don't find anything they've done since 1993 to be quite as intoxicating as JT and AB.
but then again, i don't find many albums as intoxicating as JT and AB. i think it's a rare thing, to create a classic, and they did it twice. can they do it again? probably not in the same way, because they will forever be compared to those two albums. just pulling off AB was a feat in and of itself. when you have a moment where a band "arrives" i think it casts a shadow over everything that happens after.
i do wish U2 would be a bit more reckless with their albums, on that i agree. but i don't want them to adopt an indie ethos or think that it's "all about the music." that's what killed Pearl Jam. honestly -- has anyone cared about a PJ album since Vitology? they're still a great band, they still (i hear) put on a great concert. but by failing to engage the mainstream made them comparatively bloodless.
it's not just about the music. the music is a means to an end. it's about engagement and sparking imagination, and there's a fine line between that and just being an attention whore (as an aside, this is what Madonna has done her whole career, walk that line).
*raises hand* I'm sixteen, and look where I am. I know several other people my age who really like U2, too... they aren't as obsessed as I am, but they definitely exist. I wasn't the only person who missed school the other week to see U2 in Houston.
I almost feel I have a bit of a lucky advantage in getting to know U2 material as recently as I did, because I don't have nostalgic emotional attachments to any one era or another. I heard all of U2's catalog more or less all at the same time. I was hooked in primarily by COBL, actually, and I still love that song. However, neither Bomb nor ATYCLB really stood out to me at first... it was the back catalog, specifically the 90s work and TUF, that captivated me. Then came NLOTH, not that long after I had finished listening to the whole back catalog, and I fell in love with it more than every other U2 album save Achtung Baby. I personally found the album both instantly appealing and massively challenging... after listening to what U2 had to say about the lyrical content of all of the songs, I realized how even the middle three fit really well into the album thematically while keeping it diverse and including hooks. I realize a lot of people don't agree with me on this (I honestly can't see how they don't, but I accept it - it's their right to disagree), but I personally love the album more than any other U2 album, except AB, and it's very close to AB.
ozeeko
Refugee
That's awesome that you're young and got into classic U2 through the new stuff. Maybe it's just me but I haven't heard anyone express an interest in U2 since Vertigo was released. Not saying it isn't happening elsewhere in the world, but around me i don't hear squat about the band other than the usual "their old stuff was better" or "they suck" or "Bono sucks" or "kings of leon are better".
I'm not saying it's impossible to get across to a younger generation, i just think going after young kids as a conscious decision at this point in their career is foolish. Not because i don't want any young kids to like U2 (haha) but because i don't think it spawns interesting results.
My biggest concern is that there are generally only two types of possible "hits" for people my age nowadays: hits chosen by corporate radio, and demi-hits from utterly mediocre and totally forgettable indie bands that are well-liked out of a knee-jerk reactions against corporate radio and thrive on being as unknown as possible, because it's "cool".
I can't really stand either attitude, and U2 have a difficult time catering to either one. Most of their greatest hits are undeniably good songs - NYD, Pride, WOWY, Streets, SHF, One, Mysty Ways, Beautiful Day, COBL, et cetera - because they wrote songs that transcended popular music at the time but were still undeniably catchy and beautiful/uplifting/whatever, and managed to get them played on the radio (I thank - *gasp* - Paul McGuinness, the Island/Universal people, Bono's charisma, and the overall quality of the songs themselves). Usually, in the 90s, if they parodied society, they didn't make a big hit. Discotheque was the closest to a society-parodying big hit that they had, but it suffered from sounding like it was mired down in too much confusion to work after the first week in the US. Vertigo was really the only big hit that they've made while embracing total pop culture (even if I don't have a major issue with the lyrics themselves, per se). But I think Vertigo hurt U2 when they made NLOTH, because society wasn't expecting something like NLOTH. They put out Boots, which, depending on who you are, sounds like Vertigo or The Fly, and it didn't go anywhere. I really think Magnificent or Crazy Tonight could have joined that greatest hits list if they had been first single, and if U2 had coordinated their publicity a bit better. But oh well. They seem to be doing a lot better on that front later in the year, so maybe they can get some good publicity for Every Breaking Wave without sacrificing it artistically.
I can't really stand either attitude, and U2 have a difficult time catering to either one. Most of their greatest hits are undeniably good songs - NYD, Pride, WOWY, Streets, SHF, One, Mysty Ways, Beautiful Day, COBL, et cetera - because they wrote songs that transcended popular music at the time but were still undeniably catchy and beautiful/uplifting/whatever, and managed to get them played on the radio (I thank - *gasp* - Paul McGuinness, the Island/Universal people, Bono's charisma, and the overall quality of the songs themselves). Usually, in the 90s, if they parodied society, they didn't make a big hit. Discotheque was the closest to a society-parodying big hit that they had, but it suffered from sounding like it was mired down in too much confusion to work after the first week in the US. Vertigo was really the only big hit that they've made while embracing total pop culture (even if I don't have a major issue with the lyrics themselves, per se). But I think Vertigo hurt U2 when they made NLOTH, because society wasn't expecting something like NLOTH. They put out Boots, which, depending on who you are, sounds like Vertigo or The Fly, and it didn't go anywhere. I really think Magnificent or Crazy Tonight could have joined that greatest hits list if they had been first single, and if U2 had coordinated their publicity a bit better. But oh well. They seem to be doing a lot better on that front later in the year, so maybe they can get some good publicity for Every Breaking Wave without sacrificing it artistically.
ultraviolet353
War Child
There is nothing wrong with making accessible radio friendly music. Much of ATYCLB does just that. Only, it hits the ball out of the park. It's a masterpiece. The problem with this record is in a very calculated way they went for this on the 'middle Britney Spears 3' and it failed miserably. These songs suc (pun intended), save the last minute of Boots.
There is no "lift" on this record--which for me, is the essential element of any classic U2 song.
There is no "lift" on this record--which for me, is the essential element of any classic U2 song.
This is where I'm confused. I find the middle three to fit into the album really well. UC is the lifting of the spirits out of the depression of MOS, which becomes over-the-top-happy-hedonism in Crazy Tonight (notice how the song turns into a much more negative look at hedonism live before plunging into the world-awareness of SBS/MLK/Walk On!), which creates the selfishness of the man in GOYB who can see the world being destroyed around him in his peripheral vision, but can only focus on his wife and how beautiful she is (that line being chanted out in an ironically Middle Eastern-sounding way), which goes into tongue-in-cheek critique of ego and selfishness in SUC, which goes into the emotional re-birth of F-BB.
What's not to like?
ozeeko
Refugee
Amen, bro. I totally agree (with the exception of COBL- i always hated that song).
But looking at the two types of possible hits you've mentioned, you can agree that it does seem like a waste of time trying to appeal to today's youth when looking at what they're spoonfed everyday.
Not necessarily. I just think the best way U2 should do that is by being innovative and taking the record industry by the reigns - see: With or Without You. They were leaders, not followers, and it paid off. The YouTube broadcast last night, IMO, was a good sign that they're still trying to do that.
ozeeko
Refugee
Lyrical interpretations aside, i just think the middle of the record seems off tone-wise.
You could argue that AB follows a linear pattern as well, (many would disagree), but i feel at least on AB there's a musical story being told, and it all flows. On NLOTH, the story is cut short to a 3 song poppy intermission before returning once again to the subdued, otherwordly tone.
And it doesn't matter IMO what a song sounds like live when an album is being discussed. Many of us aren't going to see them live, all we're left with is the album.
ozeeko
Refugee
With or Without You they were actually talked into releasing. They were that clueless at the time, had no idea what songs were hits. Red Hill Mining Town was considered, that's how in the dark they were. Good thing too because it spawned much more interesting results. Instead of some good songs surrounded by (fingers crossed) 3 songs they were hoping hoping hoping became the gigantic off the charts hits they envisioned, we were given Joshua Tree, an album of just amazing music, nothign more nothing less. The fact that it had 2 #1 hits i'm sure came as a shock to the band. These days, the band is shocked if a song of theirs DOESN'T go to #1!!!
Vlad n U 2
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
- Messages
- 28,386
I wonder how much of a kick that poor kid got from saying that.
He must've thought he was some real tough guy by calling a rockstar "queer", he don't know the facts. 
Besides, he probably listens to some Brokencyde. 
But yes, I used to be very open about my fandom of U2, although not much at all anymore. I prefer to keep it quiet, because I know I will get the usual reaction eg. the sort that you listed. Though like you said, I too, am not ashamed of U2 or just Bono. I appreciate their music and what they've done for its existence, I appreciate Bono for what he has done outside of music, his activist work etc.
The live comment was just a little side note to show how versatile I think Crazy is as a song.
I like how the intermission breaks out of the otherworldly tone. After all, so do the subjects of the songs - why shouldn't their overall tone change, too? I call them the "hedonism break". The album starts out with the optimism of NLOTH and the "perfect relationship" tale of Magnificent (two lovers turning their lives into something much greater), the beautiful emotional collapse of MOS, the beautiful emotional rebirth of UC, and then collapses into overconfidence and hedonism - nasty subjects, but very worldly, and deserving to be broken free from the ethereal into the downright sugary nastiness of blunt reality. At SUC, the expansion of the main character's head (there isn't really a main character, per se, but more of a main progression of thoughts - I use the word character for easiness) is at its greatest, it collapses from its own weight and it mired down back into surreal unorganized chaos with Fez, and back into an organized state of rebirth with Being Born. White As Snow shows a narrator following the main progression of thoughts, with more experience under his (or the progression of thought's) belt, looking back at a world of chaos that is staring him right in the face, staying in ethereal detachment, in line with the music. He's no longer the one being a hedonistic arrogant bastard, but he's being (literally) murdered by those types of people. Breathe seems to be somewhat of an embracing of weirdness. The character (progression of thoughts) is proud to be away from the world of hedonism that he was trapped in for three songs, and embraces his weirdness with open arms, being a salesman of his ideas, walking out into the streets, singing his heart out (sounds a bit like Bono). And then Cedars is the collapse, when the character (progression of thoughts) realizes that the world is hopeless and resigns to bleak cynicism.
Or at least that's how I interpret it.
By the way, it's nice having a decent debate about this album on Interference without people breaking down into "OMG U R RONG U CANT HEAR" and instead using logical argument.
I wonder how much of a kick that poor kid got from saying that.
But yes, I used to be very open about my fandom of U2, although not much at all anymore. I prefer to keep it quiet, because I know I will get the usual reaction eg. the sort that you listed. Though like you said, I too, am not ashamed of U2 or just Bono. I appreciate their music and what they've done for its existence, I appreciate Bono for what he has done outside of music, his activist work etc.
Walk out into the streets. Sing your heart out.
doctorwho
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I'm not getting the Spears analogy at all, so I'll ignore that.
ATYCLB has some good songs - no doubt. But the second half of the CD (or side 2 of the album) fades fast and hard. POE and "Grace" are essentially two closing tracks (and a third closer, "Ground Beneath Her Feet" was added on the U.K., just to really ensure people know the album had indeed ended). The writing is inconsistent. I get the "fun" of "Elevation", but it's hardly some masterpiece. Not that rock music has to be great, but Bono has done far better faster paced rock songs - the most famous being "Pride". So for every lyrically brilliant "Walk On" there seems to be a counterpoint. The music is almost too poppy and starts to blend together. There's not a lot of reflection on the album.
In contrast, NLOTH has its pop moments, but also some great soul, great rock, and some experimentation. Nothing on ATYCLB is experimental. And that's fine to an extent. But one can't keep doing that. NLOTH has a few safe songs, but it is out there and that lack of accessibility is probably what kept fans away.
That said, if "Boots" had been a huge hit, ala "Vertigo", and the album sold maybe 2M more copies worldwide, would Bono say what he did? Would fans?
Seems to me that this whole topic is because of the lack of a big hit on the album. But the good news, as far as I'm concerned, is that NLOTH is indeed an album, while ATYCLB is a collection of songs. As a result, I enjoy NLOTH much more, even if there is no super hit from it. Besides, super hits have led to repitition. People have grown tired of "Pride", WOWY, "One", BD, etc., in concert.
Still, it'll be interesting to see what U2 do next. Maybe they need to create a few "pop gems" to get strong sales, but if they keep their album experimental (i.e., a combination of the proposed songs from "Songs of Ascent" along with some pop-rock greats like BD or "Vertigo") then they might have the best of all worlds.
While I understand you, I cannot relate - at least not any more.
There was a time when I wanted to be more subtle about my fanaticism. Then I asked myself, "why?" Was I embarrassed of being a U2 fan? All artists have had their "questionable" moments, so why not U2? Overall, I find them brilliant and I should be proud of this.
You name the artist and I guarantee you there are fans that love them and others that hate them. It's human nature. So I profess my love of U2. Others will hate them and that's that.
If some want to comment, I have my retorts. Complain about Bono's actions in government? Hey, at least the man is doing his part in trying to help others - he's putting his fame to use, not drugging himself up every day. Not a fan of Edge's sound? That's personal - can't change that. But his sound is what makes U2 be U2! In other words, I have some subtle replies for people. I don't try to convince them to be a fan. If they argue that ALL of U2 sounds the same, then I just ignore them as clearly they haven't heard enough of the group.
Therefore, feel free to share your love of the band. Don't expect others to necessarily understand. But you may just find yourself surrounded by some other "closet" U2 fans.
The reason U2 sold 3.5 million albums is not due to being on the radio it is because they have the biggest hardcore fanbase in the world and have had that for the last many years.
They are not part of the mainstream and havent been since Vertigo, which was the only real hit of significance from Bomb however it did better because it won multiple awards.
They are 50 years old they need to get with the reality and just make the music they want to make...the hardcore fans will still be around and they will still be able to fill stadiums multiple times.
If they compromise artistic integrity for sales yes U2 have sold out, sold themselves out and sold themselves short.
But as I said originally the article comments were taken out of context and I anticipate the next album will continue in the "challenging" mode of this one.
They are not part of the mainstream and havent been since Vertigo, which was the only real hit of significance from Bomb however it did better because it won multiple awards.
They are 50 years old they need to get with the reality and just make the music they want to make...the hardcore fans will still be around and they will still be able to fill stadiums multiple times.
If they compromise artistic integrity for sales yes U2 have sold out, sold themselves out and sold themselves short.
But as I said originally the article comments were taken out of context and I anticipate the next album will continue in the "challenging" mode of this one.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
They still sell out arenas and have a huge base (Pearl Jam are actually due here in Australia on a sell out stadium tour in a few weeks). I think Pearl Jams ‘problem’ (and remember, they’re probably exactly where they want to be) isn’t that they adopted some indie ethos rather than trying to grab the attention of the mainstream, but that they either have never tried shake their sound up much (or have tried but never been able to). A new Pearl Jam song sounds a lot like every last one. So yeah, take Pearl Jam as one example. REM too. If you have a distinctive sound, your singer has a distinct voice, one of those bands you can recognise easily from just a small part of a few notes of an unknown song wafting up the street, then you will suffer from a sort of public complacency if you don’t keep challenging that sound.
I think U2 pin too much on a kind of success that in reality wouldn’t do as much for them as they think, and that it appears they’ve likely got the formula wrong anyway. Trying to hoist a dumbed down version of your most famous era’s sound isn’t going to do you any favours. U2’s best shot, on all fronts, is striking out. Sure, it’s super risky, but I think trying to launch on the back of another Crazy Tonight or Magnificent next time around will definitely, definitely result in failure. Even if the songs are ten times as catchy, even if the songs are ten times better. Drop the MOR pop rock by way of classic U2. Strike out. Joshua Tree and Achtung Baby were risky and were examples of striking out, AND they’re the best sellers, the most loved, the most critically acclaimed, still are today. They crossed over all of these music-fan demographic lines, and those albums still do today. Even the biggest U2 haters still give props to those two albums, or at very least one of the two. From Zooropa on, they weren’t doing that. The post Achtung 90s didn’t connect with the more conservative and/or commercial end of the fanbase. The 00s are considered an abomination by anyone who loved U2 primarily for the creativity and depth they’d displayed on that ever-shifting, ever-interesting 80s and 90s run.
If (*IF*) they can let themselves go again, trust an instinct, take a risk and get lucky by striking with something that is undeniably great, then the rest will fall into place. It doesn’t have to be at the AB or JT level, but if those three songs on NLOTH were not more dull 00’s U2 MOR pop rock, but were while still catchy enough or commercial enough, something very unique and new and creative, and more fitting with the theme and sound of the rest of the album, then I think no matter what you think of those three songs, you can see it would be a completely different story.
I think NLOTH is fucking fantastic, but I think songs like Crazy Tonight are U2 in Rolling Stones territory, or at least that it is way too easy for people to think they are. No, this not a ‘sell out’ argument, but when a band like U2 is pushing a really weak, dumbed down version of themselves out there in support of a mega huge record breaking tour, its likely sending that message to many.
I am positive U2 can pull it off, if they can handle taking the risk. The rest of NLOTH proves they’ve still got *it*, they’re just not getting it right with the lead songs, and Bono is right, they float the whole album, and this time I think it is all about the message those lead songs sent, regardless of the quality. The casual person says: “Oh, new U2 songs. They sound like old U2 songs. But not as good. Pass.” The more cynical says “Greatest hits band releases naked retro mining song of little substance to do little more than promote upcoming huge greatest hits tour”. These two will kill the band faster than a bold creative move that fails.
Vlad n U 2
Blue Crack Addict
- Joined
- Jul 6, 2008
- Messages
- 28,386
While I understand you, I cannot relate - at least not any more.
There was a time when I wanted to be more subtle about my fanaticism. Then I asked myself, "why?" Was I embarrassed of being a U2 fan? All artists have had their "questionable" moments, so why not U2? Overall, I find them brilliant and I should be proud of this.
You name the artist and I guarantee you there are fans that love them and others that hate them. It's human nature. So I profess my love of U2. Others will hate them and that's that.
If some want to comment, I have my retorts. Complain about Bono's actions in government? Hey, at least the man is doing his part in trying to help others - he's putting his fame to use, not drugging himself up every day. Not a fan of Edge's sound? That's personal - can't change that. But his sound is what makes U2 be U2! In other words, I have some subtle replies for people. I don't try to convince them to be a fan. If they argue that ALL of U2 sounds the same, then I just ignore them as clearly they haven't heard enough of the group.
Therefore, feel free to share your love of the band. Don't expect others to necessarily understand. But you may just find yourself surrounded by some other "closet" U2 fans.
Great post.
You make so many good points, I guess sometimes it could be a matter of confidence. Although I suppose people these days prefer the typical rockstar who is all about sex and drugs and everything, it's fair to say that Bono isn't that, neither are the rest of the band.
I've managed to get a couple of friends to enjoy the music, not necessarily devoted like me, but someone who would dance happily to Discotheque and attempt to sing Beautiful Day.
Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I don’t know what the average age is in this conversation, but I’m in my early 30s and guessing a lot in here are much younger. Just saying that because the idea of trying to talk people into U2 seems really, really weird for me, when absolutely everyone my age knows U2 very, very well – grew up with U2 – and instead it’s more an issue of en masse desertion in the post-ATYCLB world. I don’t need to educate anyone on pre-2000 U2. Everyone I know will know Lemon and Numb and Angel of Harlem and Until the End of the World, but they dropped the band faster than a live grenade the minute they got past Beautiful Day on ATYCLB. So for me, it’s very much the reverse of what is being expressed by a lot of people in here. And I’m not talking about indie cool hipster douche bag type people, I’m talking about practically everyone I know that’s roughly my age. “U2 are past it” is pretty much the perception. And in terms of my good friends, it’s not like they’re uneducated. They know the songs (singles) that have come since. They know Stuck, Elevation, Vertigo, Sometimes, City of Blinding Lights etc. They just think they’ve become, well, shit. U2 absolutely shift a large % of their fanbase in and out with each change in sound and style, and they certainly won a lot of new fans over in the 00s, particularly in the US. But the fact that they absolutely would have lost a massive percentage as well – I’d wager just as many as they won over – and the type, age, demographic etc of fan that was, shouldn’t be forgotten. If they can continue to win over AND win back…
- Status
Similar threads
