Vma's 2013 ( Does the Rock n Roll World need U2?)

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
R

rennowba

Rock n' Roll Doggie
Joined
Sep 23, 2004
Messages
3,669
Just finished watching the VMA'S 2013 and I couldn't help but notice there wasn't one single band there,performing or winning awards. I've always thought of the MTV awards as being the forefront of relevant music. Granted most relevant music is rubbish but there's always some room for rock. But times have changed and the mainstream doesn't want it by the looks of it.

It's needs a band too seriously kick the mainstream into touch. Step forward U2. Music seems to work in round about's so I'm praying U2 can deliver an album that will bring a four piece band back into the mainstream. Hopefully other bands will follow.

It doesn't even have to be U2 but some band or bands need to do something about current music! It's garbage!
 
:lol: MTV relevant music? There's not even music on the MTV channel anymore! The VMA's are just as irrelevant as they are.
 
Even if you count the VMA's as being musically relevant to anything outside of general pop culture (dubious at best)...

I'm thinking back to when I was 17 and the '92 VMA's just happened. The lineup was impressive. And half of it was rock. Among them - U2, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, RHCP, GNR.

And I'm trying to imagine myself being a young person and caring about the future of rock and thinking about needing some 50-somethings to come along and 'save rock'. It seems nothing short of ridiculous.

U2 in 2013 would have been the equivalent of the Rolling Stones in 1992. And I can tell you this, while there was always great respect for the Stones even back then (or Macca or others from that generation) they were seen as fossils even back then.

I can't imagine a 16, 17, 18 year old in 2013 seeing U2 as anything other than someone you respect but consider 'over' as a relevant act (relevancy relative to something like the pop culture effect of the VMA's). It was a different time, yes, but young people want something nearer to what they are all about. The rock world needs something new and fresh and not revival/retro that mines one niche sound for ten years.

And maybe that can't ever happen again. Maybe everyone will be content to be buried in the niche from here on out. But whatever hope there is for revolving that dynamic, it sure as hell isn't going to come from U2.
 
U2DMfan said:
Even if you count the VMA's as being musically relevant to anything outside of general pop culture (dubious at best)...

I'm thinking back to when I was 17 and the '92 VMA's just happened. The lineup was impressive. And half of it was rock. Among them - U2, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, RHCP, GNR.

And I'm trying to imagine myself being a young person and caring about the future of rock and thinking about needing some 50-somethings to come along and 'save rock'. It seems nothing short of ridiculous.

U2 in 2013 would have been the equivalent of the Rolling Stones in 1992. And I can tell you this, while there was always great respect for the Stones even back then (or Macca or others from that generation) they were seen as fossils even back then.

I can't imagine a 16, 17, 18 year old in 2013 seeing U2 as anything other than someone you respect but consider 'over' as a relevant act (relevancy relative to something like the pop culture effect of the VMA's). It was a different time, yes, but young people want something nearer to what they are all about. The rock world needs something new and fresh and not revival/retro that mines one niche sound for ten years.

And maybe that can't ever happen again. Maybe everyone will be content to be buried in the niche from here on out. But whatever hope there is for revolving that dynamic, it sure as hell isn't going to come from U2.
Click to expand...

.
academyawards5.gif
 
U2DMfan said:
Even if you count the VMA's as being musically relevant to anything outside of general pop culture (dubious at best)...

I'm thinking back to when I was 17 and the '92 VMA's just happened. The lineup was impressive. And half of it was rock. Among them - U2, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, RHCP, GNR.
Click to expand...

Greatest awards show ever. All the bands you named ripped the roof off that night. And Novoselic knocked himself out.
 
I think it's me wanting to get nostalgic and wanting the early 00's days to return.

I got into U2 in 2000 and these award show were just littered with U2 performances,appearances and nominations. I remember when they were on ,the next day at school was abuzz about the awards and U2 always got brought up by loads of people.

I mean in 2001 it was U2 getting the Michael Jackson lifetime award not Justin bloody timberlake.

I sort of agree with previous posters , that these days are gone but wouldn't it be great if the new album did give the mainstream a good kick up the arse and U2 were everywhere again. I know I'd love it anyway!
 
where has the time gone......

MTV sucks, hasn't been relevant for nearly 20 years. The good old days were great but seriously I don't see what the fucking channel even has to do with music anymore anyways.

MTV today has about as much relevance in hosting a VMA show as ESPN does. Neither one plays music videos, so why not ESPN?

fuck mtv
 
If I were in a currently relevant rock band, there's no way I'd associate myself with whatever the fuck that was at the VMAs. I'd think more of my fans than to make them sit through that crap.
 
The VMA's are not important to music fans, maybe to MTV advertisers though, but for a long time they've really not been relevant to music fans. When MTV started to replace showing videos of music acts with reality television programming a long time ago the importance of the music video became less and less.

And honestly, when you want to see a video by a band you like do you just not go on YouTube or check the band's official Vimeo? Yeah. The times have changed.
 
rennowba said:
wouldn't it be great if the new album did give the mainstream a good kick up the arse and U2 were everywhere again. I know I'd love it anyway!
Click to expand...

It's kinda out of their hands. They're geezers. Most of their fans are geezers. Most kids don't want to listen to the same acts their parents like.
 
U2DMfan said:
Even if you count the VMA's as being musically relevant to anything outside of general pop culture (dubious at best)...

I'm thinking back to when I was 17 and the '92 VMA's just happened. The lineup was impressive. And half of it was rock. Among them - U2, Pearl Jam, Nirvana, RHCP, GNR.

And I'm trying to imagine myself being a young person and caring about the future of rock and thinking about needing some 50-somethings to come along and 'save rock'. It seems nothing short of ridiculous.

U2 in 2013 would have been the equivalent of the Rolling Stones in 1992. And I can tell you this, while there was always great respect for the Stones even back then (or Macca or others from that generation) they were seen as fossils even back then.

I can't imagine a 16, 17, 18 year old in 2013 seeing U2 as anything other than someone you respect but consider 'over' as a relevant act (relevancy relative to something like the pop culture effect of the VMA's). It was a different time, yes, but young people want something nearer to what they are all about. The rock world needs something new and fresh and not revival/retro that mines one niche sound for ten years.

And maybe that can't ever happen again. Maybe everyone will be content to be buried in the niche from here on out. But whatever hope there is for revolving that dynamic, it sure as hell isn't going to come from U2.
Click to expand...

This is a brilliant post.
 
Most kids don't want to listen to the same acts their parents like.
Click to expand...


Until they pass over on the other side and come out rarified, like Ray Charles or Johnny Cash at the later part of their careers. There's a certain point at which young people are able to identify with and idolize the (genuinely) old, but I'm not sure what that trigger point is.

1992 VMAs.... That was the best. 1993 was pretty damn good too.

:love: :love: :love:
 
jeevey said:
Until they pass over on the other side and come out rarified, like Ray Charles or Johnny Cash at the later part of their careers. There's a certain point at which young people are able to identify with and idolize the (genuinely) old, but I'm not sure what that trigger point is.

1992 VMAs.... That was the best. 1993 was pretty damn good too.

:love: :love: :love:
Click to expand...

I've no idea what that point is either.

'93 was great. Edge, Pearl Jam, Neil Young, Lenny Kravitz & John Paul Jones, R.E.M. Even the R&B performers were respectable.

Never happen again. Mainstream rock is dead and buried. Modern R&B is dog shit.
 
MTV is all about Jersey Shore, Geordie Shore and other crap reality series about talentless, wasted people these days. I think the last time I've seen a music video on MTV was back in 1999 or so.

F*ck MTV
 
To discredit U2 now would be unfair.

Recall, Cher had a HUGE hit with "Believe" in the late 90's. You may hate the song, but that is irrelevant to the fact that it was a monster success around the world. Given that Cher's first #1 was in the mid-60's, the same era as McCartney and Jagger, it would be easy to say she was also a "dinosaur". That didn't stop her or the song.

If U2 are able to come up with another "Beautiful Day" or "Vertigo" or even something slower, let powerful, like WOWY or "One", they could once again be incredibly relevant.
 
doctorwho said:
To discredit U2 now would be unfair.

Recall, Cher had a HUGE hit with "Believe" in the late 90's. You may hate the song, but that is irrelevant to the fact that it was a monster success around the world. Given that Cher's first #1 was in the mid-60's, the same era as McCartney and Jagger, it would be easy to say she was also a "dinosaur". That didn't stop her or the song.

If U2 are able to come up with another "Beautiful Day" or "Vertigo" or even something slower, let powerful, like WOWY or "One", they could once again be incredibly relevant.
Click to expand...

To compare Cher and U2 is ridiculous. Cher has a vast network of songwriters who are hired to make a hit. There were more songwriters working on that song than there are band members in U2. I guess U2 could do an Aerosmith and do a song from a different songwriter that was "made to be a hit".

BTW, that certain Aerosmith song was made for the Armageddon soundtrack and is one of the worst pieces of music I have ever heard.

Sure they can do another big song, but chances are slim at this point.
 
cobl04 said:
Plenty of music when they go out clubbing.
Click to expand...
I just watched the programming here in Holland for this weekend. Only reality shows and other crap. Maybe it's different where you live, I don't know, but MTV is certainly not about music over here...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

cobl04
Kiss the Future documentary
Replies
11
Views
3K
MrsSpringsteen
MrsSpringsteen
T
Hello from a U2 guitarist in Massachusetts!
Replies
2
Views
1K
bobbvis
B
P
The Band That Saved My Life - Paulo Vetri's project
Replies
4
Views
2K
Paulo Vetri
P
Headache in a Suitcase
  • Sticky
U2 in Vegas - Tips for booking hotels, flights and other Vegasy type things.
20 21 22
Replies
642
Views
32K
Headache in a Suitcase
Headache in a Suitcase
M
Have U2 Pissed It All Up Against The Wall?
Replies
1
Views
1K
pacemaker
pacemaker

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom