I just heard that entire post in the voice of Leonard McCoy.
I just heard that entire post in the voice of Leonard McCoy.
ironically the U2 harcore fans are the ones who have probably done more to create the feeling that U2 is about the past than media and/or casual listeners haveThe Edge has said in the past, maybe Bono too, that they wanted to be regarded as "relevant", now I am pretty sure that includes being in the various charts too, a matter of pride ie them not being an AC/DC or Stones, where it's about the past... they might be getting nearer that territory but I think the hardcore still care about the new record enough, no, it's also about the more casual music fans who buy tickets later on.. has it clicked with them? if so, then you get a big seller and more of those Top 40 hits maybe...
don't shoot me, i don't know what your experiences are, but among my friends/acquaintances outside the hardcore U2 fanbase, U2 pretty much seem to be perceived as zzzzzzz "grandad rock" these days, whereas kings of leon are not...
i think it's an age thing. i'm 28, and i would say most people i know either really like U2 or at least respect them. but if you go down even 5 years in age, the attitude towards U2 is much different.
i'm quite a bit older than 28 (yikes that hurts seeing that in print!), and that's been my experience with my peers and also friends who are older than me, and for quite a few years now... i got ridiculed for admitting i'd got tix to Elevation tour lmao! U2 were pretty cool among my peers around Achtung Baby tour (when i was early 20s) though... maybe it's a cultural thing? maybe their fanbase is wider/stronger in the US than the UK? i dunno... must admit that French friends my age, older and younger, love U2, but then they also love Supertramp and Johnny Haliday
Crazy Tonight will def attract the Bon Jovi loving moms. Blech!!
A band that released a compilation called U2:18 Singles, doesn't care about singles and how they do?
If the current U2 singles had done well, the people saying that "U2 don't care about how the singles do in the charts" would be talking about how important it is for U2 to be affirmed that they are still relevant and still has the ability to reach out to the young music buying audience.
If the current U2 singles had done well, the people saying that "U2 don't care about how the singles do in the charts" would be talking about how important it is for U2 to be affirmed that they are still relevant and still has the ability to reach out to the young music buying audience.
you can count me out of your inaccurate generalization, as U2's relevance and ability to reach out to the younger audience has never been important to me.
Dude, you must have like ESPN or something... you can totally read minds.
When we did a top 50 competition not long ago Magnificent made the top 10 overall really easily, and that competition had little if any strategic voting
Weren't you among those who said U2 didn't care about singles? Sounds like mindreading to me.
Nevermind, Snowlock. U2 doesn't care about their singles so why would they care about the song selection or the order of the songs?