Is u2 relevant Today

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

:up: So very true.

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." :lol:

:lmao: great point. Bono is well-respected, despite people's hate for him. Him being relevant makes U2 relevant.
 
What's with this board and the word relevant?

I think U2 fans want to know that the band that they love is relevant.

Whatever that means.

All I know is, I was excited to go buy No Line today. And to me, that means U2 is relevant. I could not care less what a critic thinks. Or what a new fan thinks. Hell, no fan today could ever have the same impression I had when I was knee high to a grasshopper when I discovered U2 during War. That was when MTV was when MTV. And music was music.

Now, music seems to have to be justified. You have to one up your last effort every time. We want to call instant classic this and instant classic that.

People forget that AB was not an instant classic. Lots of folks hated that album. Lots of my friends abandoned U2 because of that album. Fine. Didn't make them irrelevant then.

And really who the freak cares? As long as the boys think they have an audience to reach ... they are going to keep trying to reach it. I personally don't give two shits whether they are considered the best of all-time. But, they are the best of my time. And, if they are for you, great. If not, well, then that is great too.
 
I think this board worries too much about U2's "relevance".

All that matters is if you like the music. Stop thinking about anything else. That's not what it's about.
 
All you have to do is look at every iTunes chart in every country in the world and little Johnnie or whoever it was will get his question answered.
 
I think this board worries too much about U2's "relevance".

All that matters is if you like the music. Stop thinking about anything else. That's not what it's about.

This must be the first time you and I agree on something, but I agree nevertheless! :up:
 
no no cookie is the flat round thing with stuff in it like chocolate chips

biscuits are square or rectangular with nothing in it.
 
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"?


See ? That ´s why I have no problems AT ALL with "relevence" in terms of U2 and I´ll never have till the end of the times..:shrug:
 
Uhm, yes. This is evidenced by all the media coverage (CNN, MSN, etc.) where at least a blurb pops up to talk about the new album. How many other bands get this coverage besides the "dead" ones? U2's lovers and haters all turn out to see what their new music sounds like. That smells of relevance.
 
i HATE the word 'relevant' when used with music. Overuse in shitty magazines like NME means you now get pretentious scenester teenagers going round using it in a really snobby tone of voice like they know EVERYTHING about the fucking music industry. "Oh I see they've got a new album out. That band just isn't relevant anymore..." yeah? well blow me you jumped up twat I hate your very SOUL!!!! :mad:
 
I think this is a weird question because something doesn't have to have relevance in the culture to be relevant to you. I think U2 only get these questions about their relevance because some of their earlier albums were said to capture the "spirit of the times". In that sense, U2 probably aren't as relevant anymore - I don't think NLOTH has the same impact today as, say, The Joshua Tree did in 1987. However, U2 still has a massive fan base and command a lot of respect in the music world. That's relevance too.
 
Back
Top Bottom