Incorrect. I voted for Hillary Clinton.
Miami New Times: Millenials Don't Give a Shit About U2
- Thread starter jaimearodriguez
- 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.
Incorrect. I voted for Hillary Clinton.
david
ONE love, blood, life
They were popular and respected then, but even then had their detractors and critics. Not as bad as now though.
intedomine
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
I'm 31, so not sure if I am a millennial. Apparently I am by some definition, but I always thought of myself as Gen Y? I struggle with these sweeping categorisations of people based on year of birth. Useful for understanding consumer behaviour, but a distraction from real dialogue.
From personal experience, I'd say that I am probably at the younger scale of an age-group that missed out on U2's widely-acknowledged hey-day, but respects U2's contribution to and standing in musical history. Those born later tend to have a more "meh" approach to U2 (while the self-consciously "hip" ones think that they are desperately uncool and lame - the SOI distribution only intensified this). As much as I like to pride myself on not giving a fuck what people think about me and my tastes, I often find myself reluctant to "out myself" as a U2 fan/diehard around those born in the latter half of the 80s (although I think this is partially because I don't want to be pigeon-holed as a one-dimensional music fan)
People that were born during the internet age interest me more in some respects. I don't really have any hesitation to consider myself a U2 diehard to this group of people, because I just don't think U2 is really that prevalent in their conscious. They are just another dad-band, like Pearl Jam, Green Day, RHCP. So this group probably doesn't give a shit about U2, but why on earth should they? I don't see it as a problem because U2 aren't really notable contributors in the mainstream to the same extent that a Sheeran, Lamar, The Weeknd or Swift currently are.
The only minor problem with this is that U2 are proven galvanisers in bringing attention to issues of social injustice. That said, the internet babies can be brought to attention through different mediums and ambassadors, rather than seeing Amnesty International's physical mailing address in the sleeve notes of a U2 album.
From personal experience, I'd say that I am probably at the younger scale of an age-group that missed out on U2's widely-acknowledged hey-day, but respects U2's contribution to and standing in musical history. Those born later tend to have a more "meh" approach to U2 (while the self-consciously "hip" ones think that they are desperately uncool and lame - the SOI distribution only intensified this). As much as I like to pride myself on not giving a fuck what people think about me and my tastes, I often find myself reluctant to "out myself" as a U2 fan/diehard around those born in the latter half of the 80s (although I think this is partially because I don't want to be pigeon-holed as a one-dimensional music fan)
People that were born during the internet age interest me more in some respects. I don't really have any hesitation to consider myself a U2 diehard to this group of people, because I just don't think U2 is really that prevalent in their conscious. They are just another dad-band, like Pearl Jam, Green Day, RHCP. So this group probably doesn't give a shit about U2, but why on earth should they? I don't see it as a problem because U2 aren't really notable contributors in the mainstream to the same extent that a Sheeran, Lamar, The Weeknd or Swift currently are.
The only minor problem with this is that U2 are proven galvanisers in bringing attention to issues of social injustice. That said, the internet babies can be brought to attention through different mediums and ambassadors, rather than seeing Amnesty International's physical mailing address in the sleeve notes of a U2 album.
cobl04
45:33
Based on what? It's a load of fucking specious bullshit mate.
I met an American bloke in his 50s who owned a car museum in Sacramento who was not only incredibly racist and a gun nut, but he didn't even know South Africa was a country.
So fuck outta here with this millennials are idiots bullshit.
I guess you did not watch the video I responded to. The questions were a response to it. I never claimed millennials were "idiots". I simply disputed some of the ideas presented in the video. The millennials as a generation are not different or special in any way.
CosmoKramer
Rock n' Roll Doggie
- Joined
- Aug 19, 2004
- Messages
- 3,325
That's how I interpreted what you wrote. I find it interesting how I read a lot of comments(not just here but everywhere) about how every generation thinks the generation after them are less in some way. That they are lazier or not as smart, etc.... and that's true, I usually have found that to be the case but just as true is every younger generation think they are better than the ones before them. Heck, I used to think that way when I was younger...."they never had computers, so they don't get it".
Well, my generation wasn't smarter and they weren't less intelligent. Just like every generation there ever was....people evolve based on information.
BTW.....have any of you had avocado with grilled chicken and bacon on a roll??? Its a fuck off sandwich(I'm trying to use that phrase like an Aussie or Brit would). I mean, talk about a great combination!
Seems to at least fit Occam's Razor here... not that that's the panacea it's occasionally made out to be.
I have found that, at least in the US when the media really isn't beating up on U2 nowadays, there's certainly openness to U2's music when people hear it. My girlfriend, for instance, started really liking them when we started dating, and I have several friends to whom I also introduced U2 who like them a lot.
It's not that good music can't cross generations... but let's be real. Teenagers and those in their 20s want artists who they can relate to. So while they may respect an older artist for their previous work, it's not the same. And yes, I'm speaking in generalities; but it pretty much holds true for the majority.
And it's made worse when artists overtly try to cater to younger generations... which it can be argued that U2 has done that at times over the past decade.
Kanye
Socially aware, either love em or hate em, slight to oversized god complex...
If the shoe fits
If the shoe fits
intedomine
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
Need it be a band in the traditional sense?
Kendrick Lamar?
Increased commercial exposure by the album, and a critical behemoth in Butterfly (JT) with a handful of hits that may prove timeless (Alright, Kunta).
Eagerly anticipated follow up, Damn! (R&H) that doesn't match it's predecessor.
Kendrick isn't nearly polarizing enough. Everyone loves Kendrick Lamar.
cobl04
45:33
Headache nails it pretty well, although he's really only released three albums this decade.
LemonMelon
More 5G Than Man
Damn matched its predecessor for being the most acclaimed hip hop album of the century (both have metascores of 96) and absolutely smashed its sales figures. In every measurable category, it was an enormous success and exhibited a huge shift in sound that fused the deeply personal with the commercial. The album is a dark night of the soul with radio appeal and that's a small miracle that U2 pulled off in the early 90s.
If TPAB is the Joshua Tree, Untitled Unmastered is R&H (pseudo-album that held to a similar sound) and Damn is Achtung Baby. The only people not into it are missing his old sound, not pining for a curveball.
Last edited:
That's what I was looking for. A band, group, but no solo artist. Also a band or group that actually started in this decade with their first album release.
Mack_Again
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
I feel like people stopped caring about Rolling Stones long time ago but look at how they're doing now.
Mack_Again
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
mostly when people talk about Millenials they mean people born between early 80s to mid/late 90s. so they're like from 18 to early 30s, mostly. this include wide range of people I've encountered in US, from my friends to post-docs in the labs I used to belong.
it's sort of ridiculous to make some weird generalization about generations considering diversity of people. especially music taste must be very diverse; I've seen some of my friends who liked classic rock, while others like very obscure indie rock/eelctronica/hardcore.
intedomine
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
U2 started a few years prior to 1980, so as long as the debut album was released this decade perhaps.
I'm legitimately stumped, off the top of my head. Bands that scale both commercial and critical heights just aren't as prolific anymore in terms of releasing content and distribution methods seem to dilute the hype and staying power of artists.
Tame Impala (Parker)? Critically, he qualifies, but I'm not sure of the mainstream penetration outside of Australia. I'm very biased towards TI as well.
intedomine
Rock n' Roll Doggie FOB
There isn't one.
Thats probably correct. But if we were just to throw some names out there, I'd say the following:
01. Mumford & Sons
02. Imagine Dragons
03. One Direction
04. Florida Georgia Line
05. The Lumineers
06. The Band Perry
07. Macklemore & Ryan Lewis
08. Twenty One Pilots
09. Of Monsters And Men
10. Foster The People
11. Alabama Shakes
12. Big Time Rush
13. 5 Seconds Of Summer
14. The Chainsmokers
15. Fifth Harmony
Two of these bands/groups have opened for U2 on the Joshua Tree Tour 2017.
nbelcik
Refugee
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2011
- Messages
- 1,592
I'm 22 and can confidently say none of these groups are that big. Some are popular but uncool, some are cool but aren't popular. None of these bands have the all encompassing popularity that groups such as Nirvana had back in the day and none of these groups are that critically successful either. The Chainsmokers? [emoji23][emoji23][emoji23][emoji23] lol
Mack_Again
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
wow this is so white, except for couple of these bands. but still
Mack_Again
Rock n' Roll Doggie ALL ACCESS
but seriously i don't know what are the "big" bands amongst my own age group. what? Preoccupations?
These were the only bands/groups I could actually find that did not start(release their first album) prior to 2010 and had some significant sales, either through album sales, individual digital track sales, or streaming.
As for the Chainsmokers, I guess you can loosly define them as a group that is well known and popular to a certain extent. Their song Closer has sold 2.7 million copies in the United States. Closer was also the 4th most popular song worldwide in 2016. They are doing their first arena tour in the United States this year. But, I don't know if they actually play or sing anything live, really. But for some reason, people out there love this electronic, plastic sounding music.
The problem is that most artist out there these days seem to be solo artist. The band/group thing is starting to get very rare it seems. Perhaps its because it makes economic sense for one person to get most of the limited profits from any sort of sales rather than having to split it with 4 or 5 people.
Last edited:
I thought it was all white except for Fifth Harmony.
So while none of these 15 bands/groups can be said to be the U2 of the 10s, which one would come the closest? I'm gonna have to say Mumford & Sons even though their career seems to have already peaked years ago.
Similar threads
