Would it be so bad if U2 became "irrelevant"?

[pudgie_child]

As I am sure it has occurred to many other people here, the new single isn't getting a ton of radio play, and one could argue that the band's direction has taken it closer to mainstream irrelevance. My question is this: is that a bad thing? I think that a less popular U2 may be a good thing if it makes the band more accessible, especially in regards to smaller concert venues, cheaper concert tickets, and more available concert tickets. Less demand for U2 is a welcome thing, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[bathiu]

If you mean U2 becoming like R.E.M, Depeche Mode, Pearl Jam, Radiohead...etc, I don't think it would be a bad thing.
The question is would U2 be happy selling ~3mln copies of each future album? and becoming more of a "cult" band...

 

[bonocomet]

And would they think it's then time to call it quits? I don't want them to do that yet!

 

[laurent37]

I think they are already less relevant then before. In the eighties and the first half of the nineties they were major. Respected in the obscure music circles (although it wasn't said out loud and massive on radio and mainstream). After Pop their popularity has steadily declined. They still have sold very large number of records but they are nowhere near seen as relevant as in the eighties and with Achtung Baby. A bit their own fault. You have to chose. Do you want to be played on the radio or are you going for the more obscure album which has maybe on single and needs a lot of listening to make sense. I hope NLOTH is the later. Who cares about radio and singles. U2 live is unbeatable. A shitload of People will go the concerts even if there is not on radio friendly song on the record. Don't get me wrong. Boots is a great song but doesn't seem to be able to chose between Queens of the Stone Age or a watered down version of HiperdeHipHop.

 

[twilite]

Modern rock radio has become irrelevant. So I wouldn't pay too much attention to whether or not U2 get played on the radio.

And demand for U2 tickets will always be high. Even if they release a crap album people will still want to see them live. Look at The Rolling Stones. They don't seem to have any trouble filling seats. And what was the last "relevant" single or album they had?

 

[68 and I'll owe you one]

Although I also wouldn't mind cheaper tickets, better access etc, I don't think this will happen. If U2 see a decline in sales / popularity as an indication that they've lost their ability to make great music, then they will probably call it a day.

As for GOYB and the amount of radio play it's getting, I think we'll hear it much more in the next 2-3 weeks, building up to the album release and all the likely radio promo stuff.

 

[Axver]

Personally, I think it would be fantastic. Smaller, cheaper concerts are always preferable in my view. U2 themselves may not be so happy about it, though ...

 

[BoyOnTheHorizon]

If you mean U2 becoming like R.E.M, Depeche Mode, Pearl Jam, Radiohead...etc, I don't think it would be a bad thing.
The question is would U2 be happy selling ~3mln copies of each future album? and becoming more of a "cult" band...

I think relevant is a complicated definition these days. REM is always brillant, DM in the nineties chose to be a cult band, Radiohead is still big. But the kind of relevance these bands used to have was another kind. Remember when Pearl Jam shared all the news with Nirvana as hot epic grunge band?

But now what you can call relevance is an act that is in the news. Britney Spears sold more than a million coppies with that ultra crap music she does. I'm saying that real music is non important in pop scene. And i'm talking about "pop scene" not rock...

Even pop acts had to deliver pop gems over the years. Madonna, George Micheal, Spice Girls, Phill Collins, Alanis, Billy Idol and all others acts were top class pop acts. Their music had to contain that plus that make pop music listenable at least.
But after the Backstreet Boys/N'sync Britney and Chritina revolution pop music descend to their all time low levels of quality. I can't remember any good pop gem from any of those acts, nothing close to Like a Virgin or Dancing with my self...
You don't have to have a good song(for pop standarts) to be a big act.
Britney Spears is argueably the biggest artist in the world without having any good pop song in her catalogue. We are living in dark days for music.

We have some nice rock bands in the scene, as Coldplay being the biggest of them and the biggest selling artist of last year, even with the super boring, U2-pale carbon copy abum Viva la Vida. You see a pattern here...

So if in this pop scene music matters the least is natural that rock will not be relevant for at least a couple of years, because music itself lost its relevance.

 

[Utoo]

It depends on how you define 'relevance.' U2 are still a heavy influence on other bands (Coldplay, Snow Patrol, etc.), albeit it's their earlier work that may be influencing them. Their live performances, from style to technology, continue to influence the live shows of other performers. The new album may or may not have an impact on others in the music industry. We won't be able to tell for some time, as a lot of U2's material never 100% fits in with the mainstream at the time (though Bomb was certainly closer than most) and tends to influence other bands later on. Boots doesn't really fit with all that much on the radio now....there are definitely some "mainstream" parts, but there are various aspects of it that make it hard for me to imagine it playing in between songs that are currently getting airplay.

As for cultural relevance.... U2 had a big boost in the US post-9/11, as many people found some connection and comfort in ATYCLB. However, I don't think they'll ever have the cultural relevance that they enjoyed during the Achtung Baby period. They've never had it at that level since, despite having a lot of 'relevance' as the guys who have the reputation of having had such an important impact already.

If it's airplay relevance & the love of new 13-year-old listeners.....well, to each his own, but I don't really care about that.

 

[cseggleton]

i find it amazing in todays information age if something is not immediately accepted people start to write you off. Their single has been out for a week or so and we already have people talking about the irrelevancy of u2. I for one truly believe the band wants this record to be a slow burner. I enjoy the fact we have not seen a ton of promotion with this album.

 

[laurent37]

Irrelevance shouldn't be a bad thing. Maybe people think very boooooring Coldplay rellevant or Radiohead which after Ok Computer thought they could release a couple of turts in audioform an everybody would go crazy. No, U2 should stay out of the limelight and just release a classic obscure cracker of an album and don't worry about being played on college radio any more. Radio these days sucks. Kelly Clarkson, god almighty!!

 

[super fly guy]

Well its been played a lot on the radio here,so to me this is a daft question. Especialy when the album isnt even out yet!

 

[b_digg]

everyone needs to calm down , I wonder if this reaction echoes those that were around when the fly was released?

 

[laurent37]

B_digg, nice avatar. The Edge with his classic shoe punch. Cool stuff.

 

[bsp77]

Get On Your Boots is going to debut in the top 10 on US Modern Rock Radio (probably around 8 or so) and debut at 1 or 2 on Triple A radio.

So why is everyone saying lack of radio play? That said, it is not going to even approach the level of play Vertigo received.

 

[super fly guy]

People seem to love bashing U2 on this forum,its like some people WANT the album to be crap so thay can moan. Thats why i stopped listening to the @U2 podcast,some smug guy stated as fact that the last two albums were rubbish and that was it. No argument the other way,his opinion was fact!

 

[laurent37]

People seem to love bashing U2 on this forum,its like some people WANT the album to be crap so thay can moan.

Relax. Take a deep breath and all the bad vibes will go away like snow under a rising sun.

 

[super fly guy]

Relax. Take a deep breath and all the bad vibes will go away like snow under a rising sun.

Think i will go listen to Boots,that allways cheers me up!

 

[LPU2]

Good lord. Yes, it would be bad if U2 became irrelevant. But only because Bono, Edge, Adam and Larry so desperately need to remain relevant to continue on. They aren't the kind of band who would continue to record and tour into their 50s without relevant material and an opportunity to grow their audience. They aren't Aerosmith.

That said, aren't you being a little premature? Get on Your Boots was released less than a week ago! It hasn't even debuted on most charts yet! *L*

And I think a year from now we'll laugh at posts like this. The album they've always wanted to make, a massive, state of the art tour, Spiderman the musical...2009 is going to be a huge year for U2.

 

[bram]

Get On Your Boots is going to debut in the top 10 on US Modern Rock Radio (probably around 8 or so) and debut at 1 or 2 on Triple A radio.

So why is everyone saying lack of radio play? That said, it is not going to even approach the level of play Vertigo received.

Yeah, I'm really starting to think that U2 isn't aiming for anything close to Beautiful Day and Vertigo as far as promotion though. I think they released Boots as something they can point to as "see, we released this weirder/faster one also!" when they debut Magnificent as the 2nd single and the most U2ish song of all time. That will be their chance to blow up the charts I think.

 

[laurent37]

I think they released Boots as something they can point to as "see, we released this weirder/faster one also!"

Hmmm, that is pretty smart, Bram. Pretty smart.

 

[bcrt2000]

I think what happened is that U2 has become more polarizing rather than more irrelevant. A lot of people who got into U2 decades ago just can't accept their newer songs, they want them to be rewriting the Joshua Tree with every new album. Of course, if they did that, they truly would be irrelevant.

 

[last unicorn]

I don't think they are very relevant to casual music/radio listeners today, but so are many other great bands, musicians, live acts. A lot of people don't even know they're still around or are releasing a new album. But they know what people like Britney, Rihanna or Pink are doing, because they are relevant to the mainstream audience. I think U2 are kind of less relevant today (I wouldn't say irrelevant) than they were in the 90s, still they are selling their concerts out in short time and give a great live show. I think most casual music fans and concert goers care about their classic work and don't care about what they've been doing recently, like it or not. It's the same with other bands as well.

 

[purpleoscar]

That will be their chance to blow up the charts I think.

They might blow up the charts but I don't think they will. Magnificent is a great epic song but the kind of people who like Top 40 would look at that song like it was Bach or Mozart. U2 usually is like Led Zeppelin in that singles don't necessarily do well but the album sales do well. Why buy a single when the entire album is good?

 

[Gilead12]

I just don't think irrelevant U2 is possible. U2 would quit if that ever happened.

Because despite their 90s bravado, they've proved throughout their career that they put a lot of stock in the opinions of the listening public. When Pop didn't do well, they decided it was because it wasn't good enough. They have the will to experiment, but they honestly believe that the public's acceptance is a fair measure of the quality of their music. Wrong or right, I think that's respectable.

Ultimately, it's U2. Look at the band name. They always wanted to be the big-tent rock group, a band making universal music. And if they start to feel that same Pop reaction to this record, we're probably in for an updated ATYCLB in the future, possibly built on that Rubin sound.

In summary... irrelevant U2 is not U2 at all.

Which is why I hope they have an epic in their back pocket.

 

[MMP]

Difficult question....

Would I feel bad?
Probably... I like that the band that I like the most is one of the most respected bands ever and the biggest rock band in the world. That feels nice and I've no shame to admit it. But that's me.

What matters is what the band would feel.
But first... are we talking about irrelevant commercially or irrelevant musically?
Y'know what... for U2 it's almost the same. This is the band that when recieved mixed reviews for the first time (R&H), changed completely their sound. "But how can it be the same?" you ask me and says: "R&H sold 12 million copies!!" R&H sold 12 million copies in times where that was an easy feat for a big band... and R&H was released only 1/2 year after their breakthrough and best-seller The Joshua Tree. Maybe 12 million is not that much, and mixed reviews apparently is not good enough.
Then, we're in 1997. The band again is recieveing mixed reviews and "poor" sales with their new album, POP. What happens? Only one year later we see the band revamping as a single a Joshua Tree-days track to put in their first compliation The Best Of 1980-1990. Two years later, in 2000, U2 releases a "back-to-basics", but still innovative album. Now it's 2009 and U2 is again changin' style. They know that if they start to repeat themselves they might sell, but then they would be turning into Stones.
U2 likes praise and sucess, and whenever this band doesn't get it, they do something in order to get those. I love U2 because of that. They always try to do their best. But I don't think they would remain as a band if they're not gettin both.

So yes, it would be bad.

 

[Gilead12]

Good post MrMac... that's what I believe: U2 isn't U2 without the huge success.

 

[Salome]

to me U2 has always been about 'connecting' instead of about 'relevance'

 

[subnet]

here in Canada, on MuchMusic, the KOL Sex on Fire video is finally at #1. Their second single is out and climbing. So they double their exposure and build momentum

For U2, it looks like the same, they will take their time building up their marketing machine and drive momentum.

I doubt they want a little spark from their first single, they want a bonfire from their album.

 

[buzzkill27]

I think they are already less relevant then before. In the eighties and the first half of the nineties they were major. Respected in the obscure music circles (although it wasn't said out loud and massive on radio and mainstream). After Pop their popularity has steadily declined. They still have sold very large number of records but they are nowhere near seen as relevant as in the eighties and with Achtung Baby. A bit their own fault. You have to chose. Do you want to be played on the radio or are you going for the more obscure album which has maybe on single and needs a lot of listening to make sense. I hope NLOTH is the later. Who cares about radio and singles. U2 live is unbeatable. A shitload of People will go the concerts even if there is not on radio friendly song on the record. Don't get me wrong. Boots is a great song but doesn't seem to be able to chose between Queens of the Stone Age or a watered down version of HiperdeHipHop.

Irrelevant?? well consider this.... U2's last album (HTDAAB) in the U.S. sold 840,000 COPIES IN ITS FIRST WEEK OF RELEASE ....that is the most by any rock band in a long time...the album went onto sell 3 million copies in the U.S.
I don't think that's the sign of an irrelevant band......NLOTH will sell at least 500,000 copies in the U.S. in it's first week of release..even if "Boots" doesn't do well on U.S. radio here....U2 has a built in fan-base