cdirani
War Child
And If the media stops just to print a headline that Britney Spears is at the rehab (like many "singers" of our RELEVANT pop scene) then the question turns out to be stupid.
Is u2 relevant Today
- Thread starter smileymbcastard
- 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.
Jive Turkey
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Messages
- 13,645
Man, you took the words right out of my mouth. Any station that plays Lynyrd Skynyrd on a regular basis should not be asking such a question
Yeah, like, put on another tepid Eric Clapton record why don't you?
The Anton Corbijn video of "Get on Your Boots," with the girl dancing next to the mirror, then the moutachio'd women in the keyhole... genius. I rather wish they'd used that for the video. Here's hoping they use Corbijn's "Magnificent" video for that single release. That was amazing footage. The rest of "Linear"... well... it's just alright. What was with the camera being tilted to the right on the Paris drive-by shots? Corbijn's best cinematography is when he goes all hazy, and leaves people out in the distance, like a Salvador Dali painting. But I digress...
The Anton Corbijn video of "Get on Your Boots," with the girl dancing next to the mirror, then the moutachio'd women in the keyhole... genius. I rather wish they'd used that for the video. Here's hoping they use Corbijn's "Magnificent" video for that single release. That was amazing footage. The rest of "Linear"... well... it's just alright. What was with the camera being tilted to the right on the Paris drive-by shots? Corbijn's best cinematography is when he goes all hazy, and leaves people out in the distance, like a Salvador Dali painting. But I digress...
Anji
New Yorker
Course U2 are relevant! They are still the influence of up and coming bands.
It's like saying The Beatles are not relevant! Where would Mr Gallagher be without using the Beatles sounds? Tin hat on ready for Madforit
Again, U2 sounds very Beatleseque on one track on this Album. Everything is relevant, even the irrellivant
It's like saying The Beatles are not relevant! Where would Mr Gallagher be without using the Beatles sounds? Tin hat on ready for Madforit
Again, U2 sounds very Beatleseque on one track on this Album. Everything is relevant, even the irrellivant
Absolutely agree on that. And not only that but Bono is trying also to be the one who determines U2's relevance, not giving due credit to his audience unfortunately. It's all very transparent to me, how this guy's self proclamations like "We're applying for the job of the greatest rock band in the world" and "if this isnt U2's greatest album we are then irrelevant" is an attempt to monopolize power and status in the music world.
The truth is many kids today have either never heard of or dont listen to or dont care for U2. When I was growing up the beatles and stones were seen as the dinosaurs of rock, completely out of touch with issues that affect the stuggle of growing up. Today U2 is in that rank, it's completely inevitable. However having said that, the definition of relevance is subjective. They still rock, they still have something to say, and a unique way of saying it. But are they on the cutting edge? Nah, they havent been there in ages, since artung baby, and alot of that was derivative from younger music also. The just seem to go with whatever is just slightly behind them, and blow it up huge assuming the masses hadnt notice it. The formula is predictable but lovable.
My question would be: Is the release of this CD anybig deal? The music is 95% great, agreed. But does it merrit 5 nights on letterman? Is that an acolade for their accomplishment or just a P.R. power move? That wherein the definition of relevance lies I think. But it's just IMHO always.
Marien
Refugee
Who cares? I like their music, that's enough for me. I think that this relevance debate might only be of importance to U2, but not to the fans.
EmitFlesti
The Fly
Can I just say... U2 are a band, four members, plural !
There are plural members of the band, but the band itself is a singular unit (there are not multiple U2s), hence "U2 is..."
Using the same logic, for example, one would say, "Interference is a great website." You wouldn't say "Interference are a great website", simply because the website has multiple members.
I know this is standard usage among Brits, but it really makes no grammatical sense.
MrPryck2U
ONE love, blood, life
Ok, yes the CD is a big deal. Does it merit 5 nights on Letterman? No because it doesn't need to. This is U2 we're talking about here! If you think them being on Letterman is a PR move, than I guess you don't really have a high regard for their intentions. U2 have earned enough clout to be on Letterman for at least 10 nights. And they don't need to be there to promote a new album. They could do it just because they are U2. But, it sure doesn't hurt. Quid quo pro. I help you, you help me. Dave gets great ratings for having U2 on the show and U2 gets to have a whole bunch of people hear their new music. U2 have been the same 4 guys since 1976. There are only a handful of bands who can lay claim to being together with the original line up for over 30 years. And in that time, U2 has continued to push music into new and exciting directions while still maintaining that distinctive U2 sound.
VintagePunk
Blue Crack Distributor
Derringer is an asshat, anyway. Can't stand the guy. Just your typical loud-mouthed and obnoxious morning jock who tries to stir up controversy. If I happen to be in my car (only place I listen to the radio) when his show is on, and I scan by his station and hear his voice, I immediately change the dial. The guy bugs the shit out of me, and always has.
Zoomerang96
ONE love, blood, life
this is just it.
relevance is such a tricky thing, because u2/coldplay/radiohead could literally make the worst record ever and it'd still sell millions because yes, culturally they are relevant and always will be.
Dragonfave
New Yorker
EmitFlesti
The Fly
I'm not sure exactly how you quantify relevance (i.e. Relevant for whom? the world at large? for music lovers?, etc. Face it, even a mega-selling album of say 20 million reaches only a negligible fraction of humanity in a world of 6+ billion people). The fact is though, that not even the Beatles or the Stones stayed as relevant, innovative, and interesting as U2 for so long. Thirty years after their first album releases they were long since broken-up or releasing boring blues-rock retreads to support the latest greatest hits tour.
Certainly the fact that people are, nearly 30 years after the release of their first album, discussing the question of U2's ongoing relevance is itself a sign of their relevance.
Certainly the fact that people are, nearly 30 years after the release of their first album, discussing the question of U2's ongoing relevance is itself a sign of their relevance.
AtomicBono
ONE love, blood, life
Excellent point. The recent NY Times article mentioned how all the bands at the Brit Awards "couldn't help sounding like U2 knockoffs." If they're influencing that many successful modern bands, most of whom are quite open about their love for U2, then I think that alone means they're still relevant.
Lemonfix
Refugee
"My brief flirtation as a U2 fanboy came to an abrupt end due to a combination of “Zooropa” and “Pop” sucking and my girlfriend at the time having an affair with a goddamn U2 stage show lighting technician. I sold all my U2 records to Amoeaba and washed my hands of them. I no longer enjoyed U2 without thinking of that crushing humiliation suffered at their unknowing hands."
doctorwho
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
Using one song, like "Boots", is a poor way of determining relevance. Often a single is "throwaway". It's there to promote an album and may not really represent the album overall. Other times, a single is just meant to be a fun, light-hearted song. Cindy Lauper has written some deep powerful songs over the years. But one of her biggest hits was "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun". It's a fun, throwaway song. To judge Lauper based on that one track would be foolish. Analogously, it's foolish to judge an album or a band, and that band's relevance, on one song.
Furthermore, a single is a hit today, but nothing tomorrow. If "Boots" was a #1 song, would that make it better in terms of relevance? Or if it was "Vertigo" or "Beautiful Day" instead, what's the opinion there? "Boots" had a double meaning - about a woman and a country - about family life and the life of war. Most, though, don't see that side of the song or they dismiss it (because people are "too busy" to think). Still, the song was meant to be fun rocker. Is it fair to judge a band on that?
Also, as was stated earlier, what is relevance?
U2's last two albums sold tons. They have outsold Coldplay, U2's biggest "modern" competition. And we all know U2's tours have and will easily sell out. U2 have a spot on Letterman for a week. Few other artists could do that (or would be invited to do so). U2 open the Grammy's and the Brit awards - even though they weren't nominated for either. They are all over the BBC TV and American TV ("Good Morning America"). So tell me, is that relevant? Because if U2 weren't relevant, why would any of these shows care? Why would they have U2 on if the U2 name didn't matter? Why would U2 be allowed to play new songs if they were some dinosaur act and people only wanted to hear the "oldies"?
To me, that's relevance. U2 have received "hate" for ages, especially after the success of JT. So there will be the bad reviews. But I'm sure NLOTH will still see strong sales, will still open at #1 and the tour will still sell out, despite the poor economy. To me, that is relevance. Money talks - people don't buy what they don't care about.
Now, if by "relevance" one means influence - then listen to Coldplay, The Killers, Kings of Leon, Franz Ferdinand, Snow Patrol and many other bands (including some that have disbanded, like Creed and old Smashing Pumpkins) for influence. These acts are based on U2. These acts talk about trying to write their JT or AB or their "Streets" or "One" or whatever song. These are the bands that see U2 have hits with "Beautiful Day" and "Vertgio" 20+ years after U2's first album. They see U2 sell boatloads of albums, win tons of awards, have sold out tours and hit song. Little wonder these bands try to emulate - albeit in their own manner - U2's style. So if current popular bands are all influenced by U2, that screams relevance to me.
One can hate on GOYB - but don't dismiss U2 as not being relevant.
Furthermore, a single is a hit today, but nothing tomorrow. If "Boots" was a #1 song, would that make it better in terms of relevance? Or if it was "Vertigo" or "Beautiful Day" instead, what's the opinion there? "Boots" had a double meaning - about a woman and a country - about family life and the life of war. Most, though, don't see that side of the song or they dismiss it (because people are "too busy" to think). Still, the song was meant to be fun rocker. Is it fair to judge a band on that?
Also, as was stated earlier, what is relevance?
U2's last two albums sold tons. They have outsold Coldplay, U2's biggest "modern" competition. And we all know U2's tours have and will easily sell out. U2 have a spot on Letterman for a week. Few other artists could do that (or would be invited to do so). U2 open the Grammy's and the Brit awards - even though they weren't nominated for either. They are all over the BBC TV and American TV ("Good Morning America"). So tell me, is that relevant? Because if U2 weren't relevant, why would any of these shows care? Why would they have U2 on if the U2 name didn't matter? Why would U2 be allowed to play new songs if they were some dinosaur act and people only wanted to hear the "oldies"?
To me, that's relevance. U2 have received "hate" for ages, especially after the success of JT. So there will be the bad reviews. But I'm sure NLOTH will still see strong sales, will still open at #1 and the tour will still sell out, despite the poor economy. To me, that is relevance. Money talks - people don't buy what they don't care about.
Now, if by "relevance" one means influence - then listen to Coldplay, The Killers, Kings of Leon, Franz Ferdinand, Snow Patrol and many other bands (including some that have disbanded, like Creed and old Smashing Pumpkins) for influence. These acts are based on U2. These acts talk about trying to write their JT or AB or their "Streets" or "One" or whatever song. These are the bands that see U2 have hits with "Beautiful Day" and "Vertgio" 20+ years after U2's first album. They see U2 sell boatloads of albums, win tons of awards, have sold out tours and hit song. Little wonder these bands try to emulate - albeit in their own manner - U2's style. So if current popular bands are all influenced by U2, that screams relevance to me.
One can hate on GOYB - but don't dismiss U2 as not being relevant.
EmitFlesti
The Fly
Also, when your lead singer can command the ear of various Presidents, Prime Ministers, religious leaders, etc., that's a sure sign of relevance. Perhaps not relevance in a strictly musical sense, but surely a sign that they are relevant in general.
Can anyone seriously imagine any other rock'n'roll frontman who could get his calls put through to, say, the US President, the PM of Britain, or the head of the UN? Imagine the response if the President's secretary said, "Sir, I have Chris Martin from Coldplay on the line."
Can anyone seriously imagine any other rock'n'roll frontman who could get his calls put through to, say, the US President, the PM of Britain, or the head of the UN? Imagine the response if the President's secretary said, "Sir, I have Chris Martin from Coldplay on the line."
EmitFlesti
The Fly
"My brief flirtation as a U2 fanboy came to an abrupt end due to a combination of “Zooropa” and “Pop” sucking and my girlfriend at the time having an affair with a goddamn U2 stage show lighting technician. I sold all my U2 records to Amoeaba and washed my hands of them. I no longer enjoyed U2 without thinking of that crushing humiliation suffered at their unknowing hands."
I feel your pain, but your girlfriend running off with a lighting tech isn't really the band's fault is it?
I still don't understand the anti-Pop attitude. take out Miami and Discotheque, and it's a brilliant album that ranks among their best. Some of Bono's best lyrical work.
last unicorn
Blue Crack Addict
They are relevant for me and my life and that's all that matters.
I don't care about relevant band or artists. If I don't like their music, they can be relevant all they like.
I don't care about relevant band or artists. If I don't like their music, they can be relevant all they like.
indra
ONE love, blood, life
- Joined
- Jan 20, 2004
- Messages
- 12,689
Can I just say... U2 are a band, four members, plural !
See below.
Yep. The U2 are bit used to drive me nuts because U2 the band is singular, not plural, but I got over it.
Ever hear the quote: "America and England are two nations divided by a common language." ? Differences in usage such as this are part of the reason. Also that you people (Brits) call cookies biscuits. They are cookies, damn it!
EmitFlesti
The Fly
See below.
Yep. The U2 are bit used to drive me nuts because U2 the band is singular, not plural, but I got over it.
Ever hear the quote: "America and England are two nations divided by a common language." ? Differences in usage such as this are part of the reason. Also that you people (Brits) call cookies biscuits. They are cookies, damn it!
They also call sweaters jumpers!
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
If they're relevant enough to stir up debate regarding their relevancy, they must be somewhat relevant. 
Earnie Shavers
Rock n' Roll Doggie VIP PASS
I think U2 are, I don't think their music is.
They haven't been anywhere near the front of the pack musically for 15 years now (that's not a statement about quality, just influence/impact etc - although granted ATYCLB had a cultural impact in the US post 9/11, but that's more circumstance than creative genius).
They haven't been anywhere near the front of the pack musically for 15 years now (that's not a statement about quality, just influence/impact etc - although granted ATYCLB had a cultural impact in the US post 9/11, but that's more circumstance than creative genius).
shart1780
Rock n' Roll Doggie
What's with this board and the word relevant?
MrPryck2U
ONE love, blood, life
Ok, if U2 haven't been in the front of the pack musically for 15 years now, then who has?
