Jeannieco
Rock n' Roll Doggie Band-aid
JCOSTER said:
no need for but I do agree with you Mr. B!!!
Ya, what she said!
JCOSTER said:
no need for but I do agree with you Mr. B!!!
Chizip said:
I'd be willing to bet if you were somehow able to check out how many young fans U2 attracted in the 80s, 90s, and 00s, that the 00s is the decade in which they attracted the least amount of young fans.
I have no evidence or proof to back this up though, just a hunch.
fna692002 said:
I'd say the opposite. The 00's have produced a new rising of U2 fans. BD brought in the first batch, than the ATYCLB blow up in 01- 02 brought in some more.(including me) Vertigo and HTDAAB brought in loads of new fans.
GibsonGirl said:I became a fan in 2000 because, comparitively speaking, everything else on MTV stunk. I was at that age when it wasn't cool to listen to my parents' music anymore (which is what I'd done before then.) Unfortunately, everything my friends listened to did nothing for me. Then, one day, I flipped on the TV and saw the video for Beautiful Day... I liked the band because they still had that classic rock sound of the music I had grown up on, and I liked them because my parents didn't. So I went out and bought ATYCLB with some pocket money. Then I found out that U2 had even MORE albums. And after buying them, found that they were collectively a million times better than All That You Can't Leave Behind!
Once I discovered AB, JT, and UF, I hardly even listened to ATYCLB. It did nothing more than pick up dust in my CD rack. Therefore, I don't really think the "you're a fan of the genre you grew up with" theory is very accurate. The ATYCLB/HTDAAB era is my least-favourite by far.
angelordevil said: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.
GibsonGirl said:
Therefore, I don't really think the "you're a fan of the genre you grew up with" theory is very accurate. The ATYCLB/HTDAAB era is my least-favourite by far.
I had pretty much the same experience, except with How To Dismantle an Atomic Bomb. I'd known of U2 since the early 90s, and way back when, my brother had Zooropa on cassette, but I was too young to really pay attention at the time.GibsonGirl said:I became a fan in 2000 because, comparitively speaking, everything else on MTV stunk. I was at that age when it wasn't cool to listen to my parents' music anymore (which is what I'd done before then.) Unfortunately, everything my friends listened to did nothing for me. Then, one day, I flipped on the TV and saw the video for Beautiful Day... I liked the band because they still had that classic rock sound of the music I had grown up on, and I liked them because my parents didn't. So I went out and bought ATYCLB with some pocket money. Then I found out that U2 had even MORE albums. And after buying them, found that they were collectively a million times better than All That You Can't Leave Behind!
Once I discovered AB, JT, and UF, I hardly even listened to ATYCLB. It did nothing more than pick up dust in my CD rack. Therefore, I don't really think the "you're a fan of the genre you grew up with" theory is very accurate. The ATYCLB/HTDAAB era is my least-favourite by far.
Screwtape2 said:
Actually, the defensive responses and personal attacks from some of those claiming that this decade has seen some of the band's best work suggests something quite the opposite. If the band is releasing material equal that made in their peak, why is there so much division in the fandom over it?
Chizip said:
I'd be willing to bet if you were somehow able to check out how many young fans U2 attracted in the 80s, 90s, and 00s, that the 00s is the decade in which they attracted the least amount of young fans.
I have no evidence or proof to back this up though, just a hunch.
corianderstem said:This is neither here nor there, but JCOSTER, based on what you said in another thread in regards to your age ... I'd say that you were nowhere near age 14 when Beautiful Day came out.
Or am I horribly, horribly confused?
JCOSTER said:
Confused...I knew that didn't sound right. I meant I have been a fan since 1980 and then in 2000 Beautiful Day became and remains my favorite song.
toscano said:
No, bands experiment when they want to push the boundaries of their creative limits, when they want to see how far they can go. That's why Eno was brought in back in 84, to help they get to where the hell didn't know they were going to get to.
Zootlesque said:
Very interesting post. Proves people wrong in this thread. Hence will create further discussion.
AtomicBono said:
There's always been division. The internets weren't around to discuss The Joshua Tree in 1987, but I'm sure there were fans that thought it sucked. There still might be one guy somewhere that thinks it sucks
if U2 were really on such a downward spiral, they wouldn't be selling eleventy billion albums and selling out every tour
tomtom said:I agree with Canadaman. I think that there is some food for that in my hunch (I'll have to leave it that in case people like Mr Brau start launching personal attacks on me for not being able to substantiate that with Gallup surveys) that this is the most divided the U2 fanbase has ever been.
I simply don't feel U2 are artists anymore. They used to be. The sense of vision, subtlety, and mystery that a lot of their best music has for me is not quite there on the 00's stuff. That said I sort of understand what they are interested in doing right now (maxing out the "hummability" factor) which I can see as a challenge and an interesting thing. It's just that there are loads of people doing that and almost no one doing what U2 used to: make music with balls, soul, substance, complexity, subtlety, texture, mystery, depth, integrity, humanity.
Some of their new work does have that for me - namely Kite, IALW, Fast Cars, Xanax and Wine, Smile. But for the most part, its great tunes. But let Neil Diamond do that my heart says. I want U2 to take me on a fucking mind-body-soul trip.
Utoo said:What was the first U2 cd you bought, btw?
hcbiggs2002 said:Also U2 lost alot of fans when Achtung Baby came out coz it was just soooo different from any thing they'd done before and some of the older fans just couldn't get they're heads around it!
Chile said:If anything, age has sharpened u2's collective wit, made them more precise, more articulate, more poetic, and more true to the tune.
corianderstem said:
I had to make sure ... I thought maybe you had a teenager posting under your name, like Lila's daughter.