Coming to accept that U2 is an aging rock band

[elevated_u2_fan]

Sorry Chizip, I've always thought exactly the opposite, as well.

It just seems like they've deliberately tried to attract young fans in a carefully executed way since 2000. I think it was the head of Interscope records who said how they actually set out to completely re-brand U2 following the 'failure' of Pop. I think it definitely worked. I wonder if it worked so well, that now, instead of reaching for new sonic territory, we have a band that's afraid to fall flat on its face and pick up the pieces.

I'll say this: U2 are damn smart, and smarter than me. But sometimes smarts and savviness don't necessarily equate with great art. Then, of course, you get into the whole 'taste' thing, which is very subjective.

I also think GibsonGirl makes a great point about how a band's recent output can act as a portal to their earlier stuff. That's bound to happen again with U2:18, even though it's nothing new and exciting for most of us.

I'm not sure if it was an attempt to woo young fans specifically but they did consciously turn up the marketing and promotion. When I look at the PopMart era especially I don't look at the album or tour itself as a failure but there was a definite failure in terms of promotion, at least in North America.

I think (and I'm no expert here) that there were two set backs at the begging of the Tour - the "Year in Pop" special - which is considered to this day (apparently) as one of the lowest rated specials in TV history and the weak opening shows in Las Vegas which of course the critics pounced on.

I have a feeling this really caught U2 off guard and I think they made a decision (whether consciously or unconsciously) to back off with promoting the tour/album in North America. They made very few appearances on TV (I remember one performance on the MTV awards and an interview on David Letterman - just Bono and Larry, with no performance.) and gave only a few interviews. I think this is where they made the mistake.

Now, you look at ATYCLB and on and they were everywhere; Letterman, Leno, MTV, NBC, Ipod Commercials...

I think that they were more interested in promoting themselves more then actively attracting a younger audience but they definitely came along as well.

I will agree IMO that artistically and creatively U2 are not at the same level as they previously were but in business terms they are much wiser.

 

[Irvine511]

i also wonder to what extent Bono's political influence is tied to U2's ability to still sell records. the fact that they are still popular, are still on the radio, still win buckets of Grammys, and still sell out each and every arena show, might have something to do with Bono's influence. politicians love power, and Bono needs to demonstrate power in his sphere (popular music) to win respect in another sphere (politics).

 

[thrillme]

i also wonder to what extent Bono's political influence is tied to U2's ability to still sell records. the fact that they are still popular, are still on the radio, still win buckets of Grammys, and still sell out each and every arena show, might have something to do with Bono's influence. politicians love power, and Bono needs to demonstrate power in his sphere (popular music) to win respect in another sphere (politics).

I think it's the other way around. It's the success of U2, that allowed Bono the fame, the "power" to get a foot in the door to talk with politicians, especially world leaders. I can't just call up Tony Blair and start asking him about why he did this or that.

 

[thrillme]

Now, you look at ATYCLB and on and they were everywhere; Letterman, Leno, MTV, NBC, Ipod Commercials...

I think that they were more interested in promoting themselves more then actively attracting a younger audience but they definitely came along as well.

I will agree IMO that artistically and creatively U2 are not at the same level as they previously were but in business terms they are much wiser.

They've always been interested in promoting themselves though, they were much more aggressive in doing that in their early days than now, but that makes sense, heavy promotion is what any band or artist who wants to be successful does.

Isn't that what a tour is for, promotion? A promo for the new album, as wells as for the band performing. If you have 10 tours,a couple large tours, in your music career, you're not exactly shunning promoting yourself.

I've across a bunch of TV appearances from U2's early days, so the only thing that's different is...nowadays it's wrong to be on TV shows? I dunno.

The Beatles were on the Ed Sullivan TV show, that's promotion.

Seems only the bands who to want to play only to their diehards and stay underground are the ones who shun anything that would be considered mainstream, like TV show appearances.

If I were a musician, I'd like to make music for myself sure, but it be cool if other people liked what I was doing too. Then getting paid for it, why not?

Lyrically, I don't think there are too many U2 songs I would consider safe mainstream fare.

tomtom wrote: almost no one doing what U2 used to: make music with balls, soul, substance, complexity, subtlety, texture, mystery, depth, integrity, humanity.

Used to? Guess we have different ideas about what we consider to be soulful, having substance, etc. No humanity in writing about your father, eh.

If you're only in it for the money and not artistically, why would you write songs knowing a large number of people won't even take a listen just by the title? Ie., Yahweh. I believe U2 are still very much artists. But hey, they like being successful too, heck I'd like to be successful artist as well.

To a U2 fan, perhaps their recent work is safe or whatever, but to someone who is not a fan, I don't think they write a lot of easy listening stuff.

Aside from someone on a Christian record label, whose going to write a song with the title Yahweh? You don't sing about God, religion, spiritual themes in a song if you're hoping the masses will lap it up. Write a song about God, that isn't bashing, you've just divied up your potential audience. Unless you're just bashing those themes, which is what can really sell for a rock band.

Miracle Drug, yeah, that fits in just fine with Nickelback, Panic at the Disco, Justin Timberlake, or any other songs I hear on the top 40 station at work. (Unless I get to set the radio station, and it's usually on classic rock).

If you truly believe U2 are only in it for the money and are no longer artists, "lost the plot" listen to every song on the U.S. top 40 chart. Start to finish, then go put in Atomic Bomb.

It only takes hearing 2 Panic at the Disco songs for me to go put in the Boy album. Same age when the albums were made, wayyy different.

I was reading an interview with Bob Dylan I think and he was saying, don't compare myself to myself, my past work with my present.

Don't compare U2 to U2, compare their latest album as it's own entity, as if it were written by a band you've never heard of, as hard as that might be to imagine. Compare it to other bands and artists who you also think are "in it for the money" have no integrity, balls, etc.

I get a different conclusion.

I've also come to the conclusion that I am aging, dang it. Peter Pan...full of lies!

 

[Irvine511]

I think it's the other way around. It's the success of U2, that allowed Bono the fame, the "power" to get a foot in the door to talk with politicians, especially world leaders. I can't just call up Tony Blair and start asking him about why he did this or that.

oh, i agree, but i wonder if the last two albums are deliberate attempts to keep their fame (as opposed to, say, REM who don't seem to care much anymore) in order to retain and even increase Bono's political clout.

i seem to remember a story of Bono talking about targeting specific members of Congress -- saying that if they didn't get on board with debt relief, then U2 would play a free concert in their district and put their face upon a video screen with the words "this Representative kills African babies."

which would be bad-assed, but politically destructive.

but, the point being that the more fans U2 has, the more fans Bono commands, and the more they are listened to.

and i also wonder if the direct appeal to the youth market isn't a means to further participation in things like the ONE campaign -- when i was a teenager what made U2 stick out most for me were how poltically astute they were, the whole Amnesty thing (i'm an early 90's kid).

i guess i'm wondering if the music is becoming more of a vehicle for their politics, and the more you're on the radio, the more people buy your albums, the more people go to your concerts and send a text message because bono has commanded them to do so, the more people are brought into the political fold.

U2 might have sold more albums in 1987, and more concert tickets in 1992/3, but Bono has never, ever been more of a cultural figure than he is now.

 

[LyricalDrug]

U2's biggest hits might be from the 80's and 90's, but their best songs are from recent years.

"Window in the Skies" is one their 10 best, ever!!!

 

[norsehorse23]

bono has said on several occasions that his efforts in africa and dealings with the politicians has more to do with 'cashing in' his celebrity and using his celebrity as currency. u2 is getting old in terms of the ages of its members, some of my high school students think of u2 as an 'old' band that really doesn't get to them. before we criticize these kids, they also listen to dylan, the beatles, the stones, zeppelin, ac/dc, eagles, alot of the other great bands of the past. maybe u2 is trying too hard to stay relevant and 'fresh'. i don't necessarily agree with that opinion, but it does have some legs so to speak. i remember when the vertigo video premiered on mtv's trl two years ago, the kids in the audience didn't get all that excited and it really surprised me, after all, it was alot different and more polished than the other stuff on it. yet at the concerts i went to (6 in all in four different venues) i was amazed at the range in ages i saw, i sat next to a 9 year old at msg, young married couples, teenages, middle age and older. they are still a popular band, and i play music between classes, usually to 'educate' these students (and keep me sane) on all types of music. u2 isn't really made for mtv anymore, and i am not saying they should stop plugging their stuff on it, it's just they are so different from the other things on it. they'll play the chili peppers, green day, and other rock bands, but for some reason u2 is just 'old'. maybe it's because they are too clean cut. but i think its more that the kids don't want to see 40+ year old men on mtv, instead they want to see their jay-z's, my chemical romance, fall out boy, and other really identical musicians on there. i feel bad for kids that they don't get to see a wider variety of music that i grew up with. u2-18 is a good way for a new generation of u2 fans to become familiar with their music from when they were the same age as them. i think they'll be blown away at how musically creative they were at such a young age and also the longevity of their songs... if you ask them, and i have, they will admit that the music they listen to will not really survive past the next five years or so. funny, but back to what i initially said, they do listen to dylan, the beatles, and others, so all is not lost. one other thing, they all recognize bono's impact to the world, and almost all of them really admire him for what he does.

 

[fna692002]

I agree they try and stay relavant, but it works. Vertigo was a hit, HTDAAB was a hit, BD was a hit. If all of these things bombed than yea I would agree 110% they need to stop trying to be top 40. Just look at the USA Itunes top 100 songs right now. They are the oldest band on the charts, yet they are in the top 40 of that chart.

 

[GibsonGirl]

If you read my post, I say that it's the time you got into U2 and/or the time you got into music. That latter part was meant to imply that the genre of music popular at the time you got into music in general influences the version of U2--and other music, at that--that you like. If, like GG (and myself), when you got into music you got right into classic rock, then it seems feasible that the classic rock version of U2 will be among your favorite. UF and JT certainly fit that bill (even AB, for some 70s bands). Thus, I think that GG's post actually supports my claim. If you read what I say, the second half implies that it's the genre of music you got into that can be a big factor in the genre of U2 that you like.

Hmm, I didn't see that bit either. I thought you were saying that the actual calendar date when you got into U2 was the be all and end all. Looking at genres themselves, now that's an interesting take on it... I do, after all, prefer the more classic elements of U2 because they remind me of the stuff I listened to when I was a kid. Where that argument falls down a little, however, is in the fact that current U2 still has a lot of that classic rock/pop sound. Their latest song is proof of this. Not to mention that ABOY is probably the closest U2 have ever gotten to harkening back to the rock bands of the 70s, the very stuff I grew up on. And I absolutely loathe that song!

But of course, it's all going to vary from person to person. So I honestly don't think any theory could account for why people love the eras they do. It's just too subjective.

 

[Utoo]

Hmm, I didn't see that bit either. I thought you were saying that the actual calendar date when you got into U2 was the be all and end all. Looking at genres themselves, now that's an interesting take on it... I do, after all, prefer the more classic elements of U2 because they remind me of the stuff I listened to when I was a kid. Where that argument falls down a little, however, is in the fact that current U2 still has a lot of that classic rock/pop sound. Their latest song is proof of this. Not to mention that ABOY is probably the closest U2 have ever gotten to harkening back to the rock bands of the 70s, the very stuff I grew up on. And I absolutely loathe that song!

But of course, it's all going to vary from person to person. So I honestly don't think any theory could account for why people love the eras they do. It's just too subjective.

Yeah, I think you're right. There definitely isn't a theory that can explain everybody. It's just a hunch of mine.

It's funny about ABOY. I liked it pretty instantly because of the rock feel to it. I definitely don't like it as much as I did & now like other Bomb songs much more....but I was a little surprised that so many people hated it so much & so quickly. I'm guessing one thing is that it's fairly simplistic---one of the reasons I don't like it as much now.

So yeah, it's all very subjective---and dynamically changing for each person over time.

 

[corianderstem]

Heck, I can't even explain why I like the U2 stuff that I like.

 

[belbird]

I'd have to say, that I think Beautiful Day did wonders for new young fans. I remember it was everyones favourite song at school.

I can't remember when I became a fan, but I was influenced by my brother and sister. My brother going to a PopMart show... don't remember which of their cds he owned, i'm guessing Pop, i think Zooropa and I know he had the 1980-1990 best of... because i distinctly remember that album cover. I think it was one of those bands you knew existed and they just seemed ever presence and "old". And so technically I become a fan in the (late) 90's era U2... but not with 90's era U2 music... because I/he listened to the best of more from what I could remember...

Anyway, then my (older) sister got into them a lot as well all through the ATUCLB period and they seemed pretty popular with my peers; stuck in a moment, elevation (especally since its ties with popular culture - that tomb raider movie).

Then they kind of fell off the radar a bit before the release of their new album, which i was aware of them releasing and i remember they had a break down of all the songs in my local newspaper, but i feel bad in saying i haven't bought it yet (nor has anyone in my family :S). we just really never got around to it. Thats not to say i don't like the songs... and my friends like the songs sycmioyo, cobl etc

Anyway, I can't even remember what points I'm making, but basically I think U2's ability to evolve and re-invent themselves generates new fans at the release of each album. They don't make albums purely to please current fans, give us what we want. They continue trying to expand their fan base.

I think they are always in the back of a lot of peoples consciousness. I mentioned to a friend after I saw them play on the weekend that they played 'Stuck in a moment..' as i remembered this was one of her favourite songs (at the time it came out) and she exclaimed 'Oh yeah!! That song. I completely forgot about it/even liking it!' They are one of those bands that you actually forget how many of their songs you know and actually like, but you end up knowing them! Ingrained in your brain!

I sometimes surprise myself at the mention of some of their songs and i think 'oh yeah! i completely forgot that they sing that'

 

[clifedge]

Yeah, I feel that they're definitely not trying as hard anymore. I think the new single shows that.

I guess we can just hope that each new album doesn't suck. But Bono has got to start trying on the lyrics again.

 

[1stepcloser]

I don't like the fact that both Bono and Edge believe that HTDAAB is U2's best album yet (as quoted in U2 By U2)

I know they're both fond of it and were excited by it when it came out but seriously, it's almost as if they're forgetting their illustrious past and shamelessly trying to promote themselves by making ridiculous statements like that.

 

[Yahweh]

Yes U2 are an aging band but only in age, not in ideas. The last few albums have been some of the bands best work and I have been a fan for a very long time. The people that think U2s recent work has been a step backwards were also the same people that probably enjoyed the sub par sales of POP as well not because of the music but because they want to have the band become a great little indy club band, not gonna happen though. U2 have been aging for a long time after all in rock and roll you are supposed to be dead at 33, well U2 is now in their mid 40s and still doing great work and in general much better then what is out there. Soon Radiohead will be an aging rock band as well....oh the shame of it all....There There.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

One good sign was Bono losing the long hair.

 

[dazzlingamy]

They may be getting old, but they still put on the best fucking concert i've seen in my life!

I also think 'this album is better then this one' this song is shit' etc is all up to personal opinion. I am of the opinion that JT is one of the worst albums, and I think its completely overatted with 3 good songs and lots of b grade waffly ones.

On the other hand, i bow to Pop and AB and going on my top 20 ATYCLB has the most of my fav tracks on it.

U2 was to me, and still is a band that writes songs that never grow old, lyrics that are interesting and mysterious, twisting and turning and leading you astray, music you can rock out too, a voice that is the sexiest singing voice ever, and a bass line that makes you drop your pants. And then they write radio friendly pop songs like BD, Vertigo, Streets, WOWY, One etc which i'm so so about, but which draws generalists to them and their shows, making them money to KEEP writing the songs that i will never tire of hearing, singing, crying, and dancing too.

 

[dietcokeofevil]

It's nice to hear someone that doesn't use the damn icon at the mention of the Joshua Tree album

 

[LemonMelon]

I don't like the fact that both Bono and Edge believe that HTDAAB is U2's best album yet (as quoted in U2 By U2)

I know they're both fond of it and were excited by it when it came out but seriously, it's almost as if they're forgetting their illustrious past and shamelessly trying to promote themselves by making ridiculous statements like that.

As a singles album, it may just be.

As a coherent work, I doubt it.

 

[Zoots]

I don't like the fact that both Bono and Edge believe that HTDAAB is U2's best album yet (as quoted in U2 By U2)

I know they're both fond of it and were excited by it when it came out but seriously, it's almost as if they're forgetting their illustrious past and shamelessly trying to promote themselves by making ridiculous statements like that.

And you are surprised by this because...?

Welcome to Present Day U2!

 

[Zoots]

The people that think U2s recent work has been a step backwards were also the same people that probably enjoyed the sub par sales of POP as well not because of the music but because they want to have the band become a great little indy club band, not gonna happen though.

What's so indie about Pop??? The album sold well worldwide. I was living in India when it came out and it was pretty big in Asia. Not to mention Popmart was huge!!! Can't speak for others but I liked Pop because of the music.

 

[Chizip]

that achtung baby sure is an awesome indie record

 

[martha]

I don't like the fact that both Bono and Edge believe that HTDAAB is U2's best album yet (as quoted in U2 By U2)

And yet in a Rolling Stone article, he said that it while it was full of great songs, it didn't hang together as an album, and that pissed him off.

 

[Earnie Shavers]

I think Pop was something like the 4th highest selling album of the year in Australia.

 

[Anu]

What a ridiculous and bootyful thread!

Of course, we enjoy U2's age, because we're not exactly the teenagers who saw "New Years Day" on MTV are we? If I hadn't been listening to this group as a teen, so passionately, so intently in 1984-1987, would I even be here posting on Interference in 2006?

In 1982, when 14, I saw the Stones on the Tattoo You tour. I remember freaking out because everyone was so old--the band, the fans, everybody. But then, I thought these 'older folk' were really fucking cool. If only I could be that cool!

Now, the U2 I saw on the Vertigo tour were older in calendar years than the Stones I saw back in the day. What, if anything, does that say?

I like my graying, stubbly, middle aged rock fucking stars, who still want to 'flirt' with the fans in 2006 'WOWY' like it was 1985 'Bad.'

And, yes, I'd sign the petition for Bono to grow some more hair, please!

 

[indra]

And, yes, I'd sign the petition for Bono to grow some more hair, please!

Be careful what you wish for.... Once guys are past a certain age most additional hair growth is in the nostrils and ears.

 

[Salome]

And you are surprised by this because...?

Welcome to Present Day U2!

yeah, the only thing slightly less surprising than present day U2 is your posting behaviour

I would say U2 was at their best in the 80s

I usually list my top 3 favourite U2 albums as: Unforgettable Fire, ATYCLB and Zooropa though
so it's all just about the same to me

 

[Sorchia]

What a ridiculous and bootyful thread!

I like my graying, stubbly, middle aged rock fucking stars, who still want to 'flirt' with the fans in 2006 'WOWY' like it was 1985 'Bad.'

And, yes, I'd sign the petition for Bono to grow some more hair, please!

OMFG. What a perfect reply. That was everything I wanted to say and couldn't! Thanks so much from another fan who has been there since 1981!

 

[Zoots]

yeah, the only thing slightly less surprising than present day U2 is your posting behaviour

You're welcome.

I live to entertain.